$ 


r 


r 


APPENDIX 


TO 


Bennetts  Latin  Grammar 


FOR  TEACHERS  AND  ADVANCED  STUDENTS 


BY 


CHARLES  E.  BENNETT^ 

PROFESSOR  QF  LATIN  IN'  GORNELL  UNIVERSITY 

■  wV  j  Oks 


S  A.  -  •*  • 


f".  ■  .A  ' 

4  V 

Cv»*v  -  -.A1 

"•*  Li.iV* 


Boston 

ALLYN  AND  BACON 
1895 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 


4 

< 


/ 


0 


131123 


Copyright,  1895, 

By  CHARLES  E.  BENNETT. 


Nortoooti  13rfS3 

J.  S.  Cushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood  Mass  U.S.A. 


PREFACE. 


My  purpose  in  the  following  pages  has  been  to  give  such 
suggestions  concerning  the  sounds,  inflections,  and  syntax  of  the 
Latin  language,  as  experience  has  shown  are  likely  to  prove  of 
service  to  teachers  and  advanced  students.  In  the  former  part  of 
the  work  I  have  drawn  freely  upon  the  standard  manuals  of  Seel- 
mann,  Brugmann,  Stolz,  and  Lindsay ;  in  the  syntax  I  wish  to 
acknowledge  my  indebtedness  not  only  to  Delbruck’s  recently 
published  Vergleichende  Syntax ,  but  especially,  for  the  moods,  to 
the  syntactical  studies  of  Professor  W.  G.  Hale,  of  the  University 
of  Chicago. 

In  marking  the  quantities  of  hidden  vowels,  I  have  deviated 
from  the  principle  followed  in  my  Lathi  Grammar ,  and  have 
departed  from  Lewis’s  Dictionaries  in  those  cases  where  the 
evidence  seemed  to  demand  this. 

For  the  kind  criticism  of  friends  who  have  read  my  manuscript 
and  have  followed  the  book  througji  the  press,  I  desire  here 
to  extend  my  thanks,  especially  to  Professors  H.  C.  Elmer  and 
George  P.  Bristol  of  Cornell  University,  Professors  George  Hempl, 
Francis  W.  Kelsey,  and  John  C.  Rolfe,  of  the  University  of 
Michigan,  and  Professor  Alfred  Gudeman,  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania.  The  chapter  on  Relative  Clauses  is  the  work 
of  Professor  Elmer. 

C.  E.  B. 

Ithaca,  July  18,  1895. 


in 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


j 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ALPHABET. 

PAGE 


Origin  of  the  Latin  Alphabet  .  -  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .1 

Changes  in  the  Form  of  the  Letters . I 

Later  Additions  to  the  Alphabet . 2 

New  Characters  proposed  by  Claudius .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .2 


Sources  of  Information  . 

CHAPTER  II. 

PRONUNCIATION. 

0 

4 

The  Vowels 

Cl 

6 

a  .  . 

• 

6 

e 

<■ 

6 

i 

0 

a 

7 

1  for  u 

7 

0 

8 

u 

8 

y 

8 

The  Diphthongs 

8 

ae 

8 

oe 

9 

au 

10 

eu 

10 

ui 

10 

The  Consonants. 

The  Semivowels 

11 

1 

11 

V 

12 

The  Liquids 

l7 

l 

17 

r 

18 

v 


vi  Table  of  Contents. 

PAGE 

The  Nasals  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .18 

m  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .18 

n  ...........  1 9 

n- adulter  mum  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  19 

nf  ns  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -19 

gn  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .21 

The  Spirants  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .21 

/ . 21 

s . 22 

h  .  .  .  .  .  '  .  .  .  .  .  .22 

The  Mutes  ..........  23 

The  Voiceless  Mutes  ........  23 

t . 23 

^ . 23 

k>  q . 25 

P . 25 

The  Voiced  Mutes  ........  25 

b . 25 

d . 25 

g . 26 

Distinction  between  Guttural  and  Palatal  .  .  .  .26 

The  Aspirates,  ph,  ch ,  th  .  .  .  .  .  .26 

Development  of  ph  to  f  .  .  .  .  .  .28 

The  Double  Consonants . 29 

x  ...........  29 

2 . 29 

Doubled  Consonants  .........  30 

Division  of  Words  into  Syllables  ........  30 

CHAPTER  III. 

HIDDEN  QUANTITY. 

Methods  of  Determining  Hidden  Quantity  ......  34 

General  Principles  of  Hidden  Quantity  .......  38 

Vowels  before  ns ,  nf  .........  38 

Vowels  before  gn,  gm  .........  38 

Vowels  before  tit,  nd  .........  40 

Pontem,  Fontem ,  Afontem,  Frontem,  Frondem  .  .  .  .  .  41 

Hidden  Quantity  in  Declension  .......  44 

Superlatives  ...........  46 

Numerals  ............  47 

Pronouns  ............  47 


Table  of  Contents.  vii 

PAGE 

Conjugation  ...........  47 

Root  Forms  ...........  47 

Verbal  Endings  ..........  50 

Compounds  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  51 

Inchoatives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  51 

.Irregular  Verbs  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  51 

Word  Formation  ..........  52 

List  of  Chief  Words  containing  a  Long  Vowel  before  Two  Consonants  .  52 

List  of  Disputed  Words  .........  62 

CHAPTER  IV. 

ACCENT. 

Accent  Defined  ...........  69 

Character  of  the  Latin  Accent  ........  69 

Changes  in  the  Latin  Accent  ........  70 

Special  Peculiarities  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  71 

CHAPTER  V. 

ORTHOGRAPHY. 

Standard  of  Spelling  ..........  73 

Quom,  volt ,  vo Inns,  etc.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -74 

Assimilation  of  the  Final  Consonant  of  Prepositions  in  Compounds  .  75 

Compounds  of  jacio  ..........  78 

List  of  Words  of  Doubtful  or  Varied  Spelling  .  .  .  .  -79 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  LATIN  SOUNDS. 

The  Vowels  ............  85 

Ablaut  ............  85 

Ablaut-Series  ..........  86 

2-Series  ...........  86 

2-Series  ...........  87 

^-Series  ...........  88 

2-Series  ...........  88 

^-Series  ...........  88 

2-Series  ...........  88 

Vowel  Changes  .  ...  .  .  .  .  .  .  .89 

Shortening  of  Long  Diphthongs  ......  92 

Re-composition  and  De-composition  .....  93 

Shortening  of  Long  Vowels  .......  94 

Compensatory  Lengthening  .......  94 


Vlll 


Table  of  Contents. 


PAGE 

Assimilation  of  Vowels  ........  95 

Parasitic  Vowels  .........  95 

Syncope  ..........  95 

Apocope  ..........  95 

The  Consonants  ...........  96 

The  Mutes  ...........  96 

The  Gutturals  and  Palatals  .......  96 

The  Dentals  ..........  97 

The  Labials  ..........  97 

The  Indo-European  Aspirates  in  Latin  ......  98 

bh  ...........  98 

dh  ...........  98 

gh . 99 

The  Spirants  ..........  99 

The  Liquids  ..........  100 

As  Consonants  .........  100 

As  Sonants  ..........  101 

The  Nasals  ...........  102 

As  Consonants  .........  102 

As- Sonants  ..........  102 

The  Semivowels,  j,  v  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  102 

Consonant  Changes  .........  103 

Initial  Combinations  ........  103 

In  the  Interior  of  Words  .......  104 

Assimilation  ..........  105 

Partial  Assimilation  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  1  j6 

Metathesis  ..........  107 

Other  Changes  .........  107 

At  the  End  of  Words  ........  108 

Disappearance  of  Syllables  by  Dissimilation  ....  109 


CHAPTER  VII. 

INFLECTIONS. 


Declension  of  Nouns  and  Adjectives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .110 

.4-Stems  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .110 

0-Stems  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .114 

Consonant  Stems  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .117 

Stem  Formation  of  Consonant  Stems  .  .  .  .  .  .119 

/-Stems  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .120 

Consonant  Stems  that  have  Partially  adapted  themselves  to  Lstems  122 
£/-Stems  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .123 


Table  of  Contents. 


IX 


# 

PAGE 

/-  and  ^7-Stems  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .124 

ii-Stems  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -125 

Stems  ending  in  a  Diphthong  .  .  .  .  .  .  .126 

Formation  of  the  Comparative  and  Superlative  .  .  .  .  .127 

Numerals  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .128 

Cardinals  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .128 

Ordinals  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  *130 

Distributives  ..........  131 

Multiplicatives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  •I3I 

Pronouns  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .132 

First  Person  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .132 

Second  Person  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .132 

The  Reflexive  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  133 

Possessives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  133 

Demonstratives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  134 

Hie  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  *134 

Is . 135 

Iste,  Ille,  Ipse  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .136 

The  Relative,  Interrogative,  and  Indefinite  Pronouns  .  137 

Pronominal  Adjectives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -138 

Conjugation  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .138 

Introductory  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -138 

Formation  of  Present  Stem  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  139 

Unthematic  Presents  ........  140 

Thematic  Presents  ........  141 

Root-Class  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  ■  .  .  141 

Reduplicating  Class  .  .  .  .  .  .  .141 

T-Class  ..........  142 

N-Class  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  142 

NO-Class  .........  142 

SCO-Class  .........  143 

JO-Class  .........  143 

Tense  Formation  in  the  Indicative  ......  144 

The  Imperfect  .........  144 

The  Future  ..........  144 

The  Perfect  ..........  145 

Reduplication  ........  145 

Stem  Formation  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .146 

The  Primitive  Perfect  .  .  .  .  .  .146 

Perfect  in  -si  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  146 

Perfect  in  -7 n  ........  147 

Perfect  in  -m  ........  147 


X 


Table  of  Contents. 


PAGE 

Inflection  of  the  Perfect  ......  147 

The  Pluperfect  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .149 

The  Future  Perfect  ........  149 

The  Optative  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .149 

Present  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .150 

Aorist  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .150 

The  Subjunctive  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  •I5I 

yf -Subjunctives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  •I5I 

A-- Subjunctives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  15 1 

The  Imperative  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  *152 

Active  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .152 

Passive  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .152 

The  Personal  Endings  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .153 

Active  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  153 

Passive  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .154 

The  Infinitive  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  1 55 

Active  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  155 

Passive  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -156 

The  Participles  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .157 

Gerund  and  Supine  .........  157 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

ADVERBS  AND  PREPOSITIONS. 

Adverbs  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .158 

Accusatives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .158 

Ablatives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .158 

Locatives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  159 

Instrumentals  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  159 

Prepositions  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  159 

Origin  of  Prepositions  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  *159 

List  of  Prepositions  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .160 

CHAPTER  IX. 

SYNTAX. 

The  Cases  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .164 

Names  of  the  Cases  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .164 

Review  of  Case  Theories  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .166 

The  Localistic  Theory  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .166 

The  Logical  Theory  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .167 

The  Grammatical  Theory  .  .  .  .  .  .  .167 

Subsequent  Views  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .167 


Table  of  Contents. 


xi 


PAGE 

The  Accusative  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .168 

With  Passives  Used  as  Middles  .  .  .  .  .  .169 

Of  Result  Produced  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .169 

Of  Person  Affected,  and  of  Result  Produced  Dependent  upon 

the  Same  Verb  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .170 

Synecdochical  or  Greek  Accusative  .  .  .  .  .170 

In  Exclamations  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .171 

As  Subject  of  the  Infinitive  .  .  .  .  .  .  1 7 1 

Id genuSy  muliebre  secus,  etc.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .171 

Original  Force  of  the  Accusative  .  .  .  .  .  .172 

The  Dative  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  *174 

Original  Force  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  >  .  174 

Dative  of  Indirect  Object  .  .  .  .  .  .  .174 

With  Verbs  Signifying  ‘  favor,’  ‘  help,’  etc.  .  .  .174 

With  Compounds  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  175 

Dative  of  Reference  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .175 

Ethical  Dative  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .176 

Dative  of  Agency  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .176 

Dative  of  Purpose  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .176 

The  Genitive  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .176 

Original  Force  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .176 

With  Nouns  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .177 

Genitive  of  Quality  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .177 

Genitive  with  Adjectives  .  .  .  .  .  .  .177 

Genitive  with  Verbs  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .178 

The  Ablative  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .179 

Syncretism  in  the  Ablative  .  .  .  .  .  .179 

Genuine  Ablative  Uses  ........  181 

Separation  ,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .181 

Source  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .181 

Comparison  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .181 

Instrumental  Uses  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .182 

Accompaniment  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .182 

Association  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .182 

Attendant  Circumstance  .  .  .  .  .  .  .182 

Manner  .........  183 

Accordance  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  -183 

Means  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .183 

Way  by  Which . 185 

Cause  ...  .......  185 

Degree  of  Difference  .  .  .  .  .  .  *185 

Price  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .185 


( 


xii  Table  of  Contents. 

PAGE 

Quality  .........  186 

Specification  .  .  .  .  ,  ,  .  .  .187 

Ablative  Absolute  .  .  .  ,  .  .  .  .187 

Locative  Uses  ..........  188 

Place  Relations  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .188 

Refert  and  Interest  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .189 

Time  Relations  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .189 

Locative  of  the  Goal  .  .  .  .  .  .  .190 

Surviving  Locative  Forms  .  ......  190 

The  Moods . 190 

The  Subjunctive  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .190 

Original  Force  of  the  Subjunctive  .  .  .  .  .  .191 

Original  Force  of  the  Optative  .  .  .  .  .  .192 

Classification  of  Subjunctive  Uses  .  .  .  .  .  193 

Subjunctive  in  Principal  Clauses  .  .  .  .  193 

Original  Uses  ........  193 

Volitive  Subjunctive  .  .  .  .  .  193 

Optative  Subjunctive  ......  195 

Subjunctive  of  Contingent  Futurity  .  .  .  195 

Derived  Uses  ........  195 

Extension  of  the  Jussive  .  .  .  .  195 

Extensions  of  the  Deliberative  .  .  .  .196 

Extension  of  the  Concessive  Volitive  .  .  .196 

Extension  of  the  Optative  .  .  .  .  .196 

Extensions  of  the  Subjunctive  of  Contingent 

Futurity  ........  197 

Subjunctive  in  Dependent  Clauses  .....  197 

Parataxis  and  Hypotaxis  ......  197 

Subjunctive  of  Purpose  .  .  .  .  .  .198 

Clauses  of  Characteristic  ......  200 

Clauses  of  Result . 201 

Causal  Clauses  ........  202 

Temporal  Clauses  .......  203 

Substantive  Clauses  .......  203 

Developed  from  the  Volitive  ....  203 

Developed  from  the  Optative  ....  207 

Of  Result . 208 

Indirect  Questions . 208 

Conditional  Sentences  ......  209 

Provisos  .  .  .  .  ,  .  .  .  .210 

Relative  Clauses  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .210 

Indicative  Relative  Clauses  .  .  .  .  .211 


Table  of  Contents.  xiii 

PAGE 

Original  Uses . 21 1 

The  Determining  Clause  .  .  .  .211 

Clauses  Adding  Information  .  .  .212 

Causal  and  Adversative  Clauses  .  .  .212 

Developed  Uses . 212 

Determining  Clauses . 212 

Clause  Equivalent  to  si  with  the  Indicative  .  213 

Restrictive  Clauses . 213 

Subjunctive  Relative  Clauses  .  .  .  .  .214 

Original  Uses  .  .  .  .  .  .  >215 

Representing  an  Independent  Volitive  .  215 

Representing  a  Potential  .  .  .  .216 

Developed  from  a  Subjunctive  of  Contingent 

Futurity . 216 

Developed  Uses . 216 

Clause  of  Characteristic  .  .  .  .216 

Causal  Clauses  .  .  .  .  .  .217 

Adversative  Clauses . 217- 


LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS  AND  SIGNS. 


♦O- 


Archiv  —  Wolfflin’s  Archiv  fur  Lateinische  Lexikographie  und  Grammcitik. 

Vols.  I .-IX.  Leipzig,  1884-1895. 

CIA.  =  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Attic  arum.  Berlin,  1873  ff. 

CIG.  =  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Graecarum.  Berlin,  1828  ff. 

CIL.  =  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Latinarum.  Berlin,  1863  ff. 

E.  L.  D.  =  Lewis,  Elementary  Latin  Dictionary.  New  York,  1891. 

Gr.  or  Grammar  =  the  author’s  Lathi  Grammar.  Boston,  1895. 

Grober’s  Grundriss  —  Grober’s  Grundriss  der  Romanischen  Philologie. 
Strassburg,  1888  ff. 

Keil  =  Grammatici  Latini ,  ed.  Keil.  Leipzig,  1855  ff. 

Korting,  Worterbuch  —  Korting,  Lateinisch-Romanisches  Worterbuch.  Pader- 
born,  1891. 

Marx  =  Marx,  Hiilfsbiichlein  fur  die  Aussprache  der  Vokale  in  positionslangen 
Silben.  Berlin,  1889. 

References  by  §  are  to  the  Appendix  itself. 

Words  marked  with  a  star  are  hypothetical  forms. 

Vowels  printed  without  the  macron  (eg.  a,  e )  are  short ;  for  greater  precision 
these  are  sometimes  printed  with  a  breve  (eg.  a ,  e). 


xiv 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  ALPHABET. 

1.  i.  The  Latin  alphabet  is  a  development  of  that  type  of  the 
Greek  alphabet  known  as  the  Chalcidian.  In  the  widest  sense 
the  term  ‘  Chalcidian  ’  is  applied  to  all  the  non-ionic  Greek  alpha¬ 
bets  ;  in  a  narrower  sense  it  designates  the  special  alphabet  of  the 
Chalcidian  colonies  of  lower  Italy  and  Sicily.  These  colonies, 
settled  originally  from  Chalcis  in  Euboea,  date  from  very  early 
times.  Cumae,  in  fact,  is  said  to  have  been  founded  as  far  back 
as  1050  b.c.  But  most  of  the  Chalcidian  settlements  do  not 
antedate  the  eighth  century  b.c.  It  was  probably  from  the  Cam¬ 
panian  colonies  of  Cumae  and  Neapolis  that  some  time  in  the  sixth 
century  b.c.  the  Chalcidian  alphabet  was  introduced  into  Latium. 
Special  peculiarities  of  this  alphabet  are  the  following  : 

2.  The  character  E  was  lacking,  X  was  used  as  x,  and  Y  (  V ) 
as  ch.  Lambda ,  which  in  Ionic  had  the  form  A,  took  in  Chal¬ 
cidian  the  form  I/,  while  Gamma  (Attic  T)  was  C.  Besides  K, 
another  character  for  the  /£- sound  existed,  viz.  ?,  called  Koppa. 
For  Rho,  R  was  employed  as  well  as  P,  the  ordinary  Attic  form 
of  that  letter. 

In  conformity  with  its  Chalcidian  origin  the  earliest  Latin  alpha¬ 
bet  consisted  of  the  following  twenty-one  characters :  A  B  C 
(  =  g)  DEF.Z  HIKl/MNOP?R^TVX. 

3.  Of  these  characters,  b  subsequently  became  L.  C  in  course 
of  time  came  to  be  used  for  K,  which  then  disappeared  except  in 
a  few  words  :  Kalendae ,  Kaeso,  Karthago.  For  the  ^-sound  a 
new  character,  G,  was  invented,  by  appending  a  tag  to  the  older  C. 
But  permanent  traces  of  the  original  value  of  C  as  g,  remained  in 


2 


The  Alphabet. 


the  abbreviations  C.  for  Gains  and  Cn.  for  Gnaeus.  The  new 
character  G  took  the  place  hitherto  occupied  by  Z,  which  now 
disappeared.  These  changes  are  ascribed,  with  some  degree  of 
probability,  to  Appius  Claudius,  Censor  312  b.c.  P  was  at  first 
open  as  in  Greek,  but  subsequently  became  P. 

The  Greek  alphabet  had  no  character  to  represent  the  sound 
of  f,  but  the  Greek  Digamma  (F)  represented  a  closely  related 
sound,  v.  This  F,  combined  with  H  (apparently  to  indicate  the 
voiceless  character  of  the  sound,  as  opposed  to  that  of  the  Greek 
Digamma),  was  introduced  into  the  early  Italian  alphabets  to 
designate  the  sound  of  /.  An  example  is  FHEFHAKED 
( =fefaced ,  i.e.  fecit),  in  the  earliest  extant  Latin  inscription, 
CIL.  xiv.  4123.  Later,  the  H  was  discarded  and  F  used 
alone. 

4.  The  Greek  letters  O  (0).,  0  (<£),  and  Y  Y  (x),  being 
aspirates,  represented  sounds  which  did  not  originally  exist  in  the 
Latin  language.  These  characters  were  accordingly  introduced 
as  numerals,  O  as  100,  0  as  1000,  Y  as  50.  Subsequently  O 
became  G,  and  finally  C.  This  last  form  resulted  perhaps  from 
associating  the  character  with  the  initial  letter  of  centum.  0  be¬ 
came  first  (Tl,  and  later  M,  a  change  facilitated  probably  by  asso¬ 
ciation  with  the  initial  letter  of  mille. 

The  half  of  0,  viz.  D,  was  used  to  designate  500.  Y  (50) 
became  successively  Y,  _L,  and  L. 

5.  In  Cicero’s  day  Y  and  Z  were  introduced  for  the  translitera¬ 
tion  of  Greek  words  containing  v  or  £.  Previously  Greek  v  had 
been  transliterated  by  u,  and  £  by  s  (initial),  ss  (medial),  as, 
Olumpio ,  sona  (£0^77),  atticisso  (dmKt£a>) . 

The  Emperor  Claudius  proposed  the  introduction  of  three  new 
characters,  J  to  represent  v  {i.e.  our  w),  D  {Antisigma)  for  ps, 
and  F  to  represent  the  middle  sound  between  u  and  1 ,  as  seen 
in  optumus,  optimus ,  etc.  These  characters  were  employed  in 
some  inscriptions  of  Claudius’s  reign,  but  gained  no  further 
recognition. 


The  Alphabet. 


3 


On  the  alphabet  in  general,  see  Kirchhoff,  Studien  zur  Geschichte  des  Grie- 
chischen  Alphabets.  4th  ed.  Berlin,  1887. 

Lindsay,  Latin  Language.  Clarendon  Press.  Oxford,  1894.  p.  1  ff. 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica ,  Article  Alphabet. 

Johnson’s  Encyclopaedia ,  Article  Alphabet. 

2.  In  writing  j  in  the  Grammar  to  represent  the  Latin  i-con- 
sonans,  reference  has  been  had  mainly  ta  practical  considerations. 
Typographical  distinction  of  the  vowel  and  consonant  sounds  of  i 
is  absolutely  essential  to  enable  the  pupil  to  tell  them  apart. 
Where  i  is  written  for  both  sounds  there  is  nothing  to  show  the 
student  that  aid  is  ajo ;  that  aiunt  is  ajunt ,  or  that  Gains  is 
Ga-i-us.  Moreover,  it  is  still  usual  to  distinguish  between  the 
vowel  and  consonant  u,  by  writing  zt  for  the  former,  and  v  for 
the  latter.  The  two  cases  are  perfectly  parallel.  See  Deecke, 
Erlauterungen  zur  lateinischen  Schulgrammatik ,  p.  8,  Zusatz  2. 


CHAPTER  II. 


PRONUNCIATION. 

3.  Sources  of  Information.  —  Our  sources  of  knowledge  con¬ 
cerning  the  ancient  pronunciation  of  Latin  are  the  following  : 

a)  Statements  of  Roman  writers.  —  Much  has  been  left  by  the 
Roman  grammarians  on  the  subject  of  pronunciation,  —  far  more 
in  fact  than  is  commonly  supposed.  The  remains  of  the  gram¬ 
matical  writers  as  collected  and  edited  by  Keil  under  the  title 
Grammatici  Latini  (Leipzig,  1855-1880)  fill  eight  large  quarto 
volumes.  These  writers  cover  the  entire  field  of  grammar,  and 
most  of  them  devote  more  or  less  space  to  a  systematic  consider¬ 
ation  of  the  sounds  of  the  letters.  As  representative  writers  on 
this  subject  may  be  cited  :  Terentianus  Maurus  (fl.  185  a.d.), 
author  of  a  work  entitled  de  Litteris ,  Syllabis ,  Metris ;  Marius 
Victorinus  (fl.  350  a.d.)  ;  Martianus  Capella  (fourth  or  fifth  cen¬ 
tury  a.d.  ;  not  in  Keil’s  collection)  ;  Priscian  (fl.  500  a.d.),  author 
of  the  Institutionum  G  ra  ?n  m  a  tic  a  ru  m  Libri  xviii.  Even  the 
classical  writers  have  often  contributed  valuable  bits  of  infor¬ 
mation,  notably  Varro  in  his  de  Lingua  Latina ,  Cicero  in  his 
rhetorical  works,  Quintilian  in  his  Lnstitutio  Orato?ia ,  and  Aulus 
Gellius  in  his  Nodes  Atticae. 

b)  A  second  important  source  of  evidence  is  found  in  inscrip¬ 
tions.  The  total  body  of  these  is  very  great.  The  Corpus 
Lnscriptionum  Latinarum.  in  process  of  publication  since  1863, 
consists  already  of  fifteen  large  folio  volumes,  some  of  them  in 
several  parts,  and  is  not  yet  completed.  These  inscriptions  dis¬ 
close  many  peculiarities  of  orthography  which  are  exceedingly 
instructive  for  the  pronunciation.  Thus  such  spellings  as  vrps, 

4 


Sources  of  Information. 


5 


pleps,  by  the  side  of  vrbs,  plebs,  clearly  indicate  the  assimilation 
of  b  to  p  before  i1.  Even  the  blunders  of  the  stone-cutters  often 
give  us  valuable  clues,  as,  for  example,  the  spelling  acletarvm  for 
athletarvm,  which  shows  that  the  th  was  practically  a  t;  other¬ 
wise  we  could  not  account  for  its  confusion  with  c.  See  §  31. 

c)  Greek  transliterations  of  Latin  words  constitute  a  third 
source  of  knowledge.  Not  only  Greek  writers  (especially  the 
historians  of  Roman  affairs),  but  also  Greek  inscriptions  afford 
us  abundant  evidence  of  this  kind.  Thus  the  Greek  KWpan/ 
( Cicet'o )  furnishes  support  for  the  ^-sound  of  Latin  c ;  while 
Aiouta  and  OvaXevrta  bear  similarly  upon  the  «'-sound  of  Latin  v. 
The  inscriptions  are  naturally  much  more  trustworthy  guides  in 
this  matter  than  our  texts  of  the  Greek  authors,  for  we  can  never 
be  certain  that  the  Mss.  have  not  undergone  alterations  in  the 
process  of  transmission  to  modern  times. 

d)  The  Rottiance  languages  also,  within  limits,  may  be  utilized 
in  determining  the  sounds  of  Latin.  See  Grober’s  Grundriss  der 
Ro77ianischen  Philologie,  Vol.  I.,  Strassburg,  1888  ;  W.  Meyer-Liibke, 
Gra77imatik  der  Roitianischen  Spt'achen ,  Vol.  I.,  Leipzig,  1890. 

e)  The  sound-changes  of  Lathi  itself,  as  analyzed  by  etymologi¬ 
cal  investigation.  Modern  scholars,  particularly  in  the  last  forty 
years,  have  done  much  to  promote  the  scientific  study  of  Latin 
sounds  and  forms,  and,  while  much  remains  to  be  done,  the 
ultimate  solution  of  many  problems  has  already  been  reached. 
As  representative  works  in  this  field  may  be  cited  : 

Corssen,  W.  Aussprache,  Vokalismus  und  Betonung  der  Lateinischen 
Sprache.  2  vols.,  2d  ed.  Leipzig,  1868;  1870.  This  work  has  been 
largely  superseded  by  more  recent  publications,  but  is  still  valuable  for 
its  collections  of  material. 

Brugmann,  K.  Grundriss  der  Vergleichenden  Grnmmatik  der  Indogerma- 
nischen  Sprachen.  Vol.  I.  Strassburg,  1886.1 

1  English  translation  under  the  title :  Elements  of  Comparative  Grammar 
of  the  Indo- Germanic  Languages.  Strassburg,  1887.  A  second  edition  of 
Vol.  I.  of  the  Grundriss  is  in  preparation. 


6 


Pronunciation. 


Stolz,  F.  Lateinische  Grammcitik  in  Muller’s  Handbuch  der  Klassischen 
Alter tiwiswissenschaft.  Vol.  II.  2d  ed.  Nordlingen,  1889. 

Stolz,  F.  Lautlehre  der  Lateinischen  Sprache.  Leipzig,  1894. 

Lindsay,  W.  M.  The  Latin  Language.  Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1894. 
An  admirable  summary  of  the  latest  researches. 

As  special  works  on  pronunciation  alone  may  be  cited  : 

Seelmann,  E.  Die  Aussprache  des  Latein.  Heilbronn,  1885.  The  most 
important  work  on  the  subject  yet  published. 

Roby,  H.  J.  Latin  Grammar.  Vol.  I.,  4th  ed.  pp.  xxx-xc.  London,  1881. 
Ellis,  Alexander.  The  Quantitative  Pronunciation  of  Latin.  London, 
1874.  A  discussion  of  special  problems. 

See  also  -the  chapter  on  ‘  Pronunciation  ’  in  the  work  of  Lindsay 
above  cited. 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  EVIDENCE. 

THE  VOWELS. 

4.  a.  The  consensus  of  the  Romance  languages  indicates  clearly 
that  a  was  pronounced  substantially  as  in  English  father.  In  the 
absence  of  any  specific  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  may  safely 
believe  that  a  had  the  same  sound  qualitatively ;  in  quantity ,  of 
course,  it  was  less  prolonged. 

5.  e.  Long  e  was  probably  close,  i.e.  spoken  with  the  lips  rela¬ 
tively  closed.  Cf.  such  inscriptional  spellings  as  pleibes,  leigibvs 
(Brugmann,  Grundriss ,  i.  §  73).  Short  e  was  open ,  i.e.  spoken 
with  the  lips  relatively  open.  These  differences  in  the  pronuncia¬ 
tion  of  1  and  e  are  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  gramma¬ 
rians,  e.g.  Marius  Victorinus  (Keil,  vi.  33.  3)  ;  Servius  (Keil,  iv. 
421.  17)  ;  Pompeius  (Keil,  v.  102.  4).  The  Romance  languages 
also,  though  they  have  lost  the  original  quantitative  distinctions 
of  the  Latin,  have  preserved  with  great  fidelity  the  qualitative 
distinctions  of  the  close  and  open  e.  See  §  36.  5.  It  is  to  be 


The  Vowels. 


7 


noted  that  the  relation  between  Latin  e  and  e  stands  in  marked 
contrast  with  the  relation  existing  between  Greek  rj  and  e.  In 
Greek  it  was  the  long  e-  sound  ( rj )  that  was  open ;  e  was  close. 
It  should  further  be  observed  that  in  our  normal  English  speech 
it  is  unusual  and  difficult  to  pronounce  a  pure  e.  We  regularly 
add  an  z-sound,  and  pronounce  a  diphthong,  ei,  e.g.  in  fatal 
paper ,  etc. 

6.  i.  i.  Long  i  was  prpbably  somewhat  more  open  than  Eng¬ 
lish  i  in  machine  (Brugmann,  Grundriss,  i.  §  41  ;  Stolz,  Lateinische 
Grammatik,  §  32).  The  evidence  for  this  is  found  in  the  occur¬ 
rence  of  ei  in  inscriptions  as  a  graphical  variation  of  i,  e.g.  avdeire, 
CIL.  i.  196  ;  veivos  ;  faxseis.  Short  i  was  also  probably  an  open 
sound,  as  suggested  by  its  occasional  representation  in  inscriptions 
by  e,  eg.  TEMPESTATEBVS  (  =  -ihus)  . 

2.  Before  the  labials  p ,  b,f,  m,  an  earlier  u  changed  to  i  in 
many  words  at  about  the  close  of  the  Republican  period.  Exam¬ 
ples  are  : 


stupendia 

lubido 


stipendia 

libido 


pontifex 

lacrima 


pontufex 

lacruma 


maximus,  oplimus. 


Quintilian,  i.  7.  21,  tells  us  that  Julius  Caesar  was  said  to  have 
been  the  first  to  introduce  the  new  orthography.  Inscriptions, 
however,  show  the  occasional  use  of  i  for  u  before  his  time.  In 
i.  4.  8  Quintilian  further  states  that  the  sound  was  intermediate 
between  i  and  u.  The  Emperor  Claudius,  it  will  be  remembered, 
endeavored  to  secure  recognition  for  a  special  character  (h)  to 
represent  this  intermediate  sound,  which  probably  was  approxi¬ 
mately  that  of  French  u ,  German  ii.  This  view  gains  support 
from  the  occasional  employment  of  y  for  i  in  words  of  the  cate¬ 
gory  under  discussion,  e.g.  contybernalis  CIL.  ix.  2608;  illacry- 
mant.  This  y  had  the  sound  of  ii.  See  below  under  y. 


8 


Pronunciation. 


7.  o.  Long  o  was  close,  i.e.  nearer  the  w-sound ;  short  o  was 
relatively  open,  that  is,  nearer  the  tz-sound.  This  is  clearly  indi¬ 
cated  by  the  descriptions  of  the  sound  as  given  by  the  Roman 
grammarians,  e.g.  Terentianus  Maurus  (Keil,  vi.  329.  1 30-1 34)  ; 
Marius  Victorinus  (Keil,  vi.  33.  3-8)  ;  Servius  (Keil,  vi.  421. 
17-19)  ;  it  is  further  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  Romance 
languages,  which,  as  in  case  of  e  (see  above),  have  faithfully  pre¬ 
served  the  qualitative  character  of  Latin  0  and  0,  while  they  have 

lost  the  original  quantitative  distinction.  See  §  36.  5. 

' 

Short  0  should  never  be  pronounced  like  English  o  in  hot,  top, 
rock ,  not,  etc.  English  o  in  these  words  really  has  a  short  #-sound. 
Latin  o  was  a  genuine  <?-sound.  English  obey  and  melody  well 
exemplify  it. 

8.  u.  Short  u  was  relatively  more  open  than  u,  as  is  shown  by 
the  frequency  with  which  Latin  inscriptions  show  o  for  u,  as 
eroditvs,  secondvs,  nomero.  The  Romance  languages  also  have 
o  for  Latin  u,  as  Italian  lova  {lupus)  ;  sovra  {super)  ;  ove  {ubi), 
etc. 

9.  y.  In  conformity  with  its  origin,  Latin  y  (=  Greek  v;  see 
§  1.  5)  had  the  sound  of  French  u,  German  ii.  Cf  Quintilian, 
xii.  10.  27,  who  mentions  the  sound  as  different  from  any  existent 
in  native  Latin  words.  See  Blass ,  Pronunciation  of  Greek,  §  12. 

THE  DIPHTHONGS. 

10.  ae.  1.  The  original  form  of  this  diphthong  was  ai,  a  spell¬ 
ing  which  prevailed  till  about  100  b.c.,  e.g.  aidilis,  qvairatis 
in  the  Scipio  inscriptions  (CIL.  i.  32.  34).  The  sound  was  a 
genuine  diphthong  (that  of  ai  in  English  aisle),  and  continued 
such  throughout  the  classical  period.  Cf.  the  use  of  at  in  Greek 
transliteration  of  Latin  words,  eg.  irpiuTop,  Kdiaap.  Terentius 
Scaurus  (first  half  of  second  century  a.d.)  bears  testimony  to  the 
diphthongal  character  of  the  sound,  when  he  says  (Keil,  vii.  16.  9), 


The  Diphthongs. 


9 


a  propos  of  the  orthography,  that  ae  is  a  more  accurate  designation 
than  ai,  as-  the  second  element  is  an  <?-sound.  This  difference 
between  ai  and  ae,  though  a  real  and  perceptible  one,  was  prob¬ 
ably  not  very  great. 

2.  By  the  fourth  century  a.d.,  however,  ae  had  altered  its 
character  and  had  become  a  monophthong.  This  change  had 
begun  in  the  first  century  a.d.,  or  even  earlier.  It  originated 
probably  in  the  rustic  and  provincial  speech,  but  did  not  become 
general  till  late.  Conclusive  evidence  of  the  new  pronunciation 
is  found  in  the  frequent  occurrence  in  inscriptions  of  such  spell¬ 
ings  as  Cesar,  hec  (=  haec),  qvestor,  etc.  But  this  orthography 
does  not  become  frequent  till  after  300  a.d.  See  Seelmann, 
Aussprache  des  Latein ,  p.  224  f. 

11.  oe.  The  earlier  form  of  oe  was  oi.  But  oi  regularly  de¬ 
veloped  to  u,  e.g.  utilis  for  earlier  oitilis ;  unus  for  oinos.  In  a 
few  words  oi  resisted  this  change  and  became  later  oe,  eg.  moenia 
(yet  munio),  foedus,  etc.  The  sound  was  a  genuine  diphthong 
throughout  the  classical  period.  In  the  vulgar  language  we  find 
traces  of  a  monophthongal  pronunciation  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries  a.d.,  a  change  which  ultimately  became  prevalent.  The 
evidence  tends  to  show  that  ae,  oe,  and  e  in  the  late  centuries 
became  extremely  similar  in  sound,  a  fact  which  gives  us  the  key 
to  the  hopeless  confusion  of  spelling  in  our  mediaeval  Mss.  of  the 
Latin  writers.  Thus  we  find  caelum  written  as  coelum,  a  spelling 
doubtless  suggested  in  part  by  its  fancied  derivation  from  the 
Greek  koiAo?  ‘  hollow  ’ ;  clna,  ‘  dinner,’  appears  variously  as  caena , 
and  coena ,  the  latter  spelling  being  perhaps  a  result  of  association 
with  Greek  kolvos  ‘  common,’  i.e.  ‘  the  common  meal  ’ ;  ne,  the 
asseverative  particle,  is  often  written  nae ,  probably  another  instance 
of  Greek  influence.  Cf.  vat,  ‘  verily.’  Other  instances  of  con¬ 
fusion  are  cerimonia  for  caerimonia  ;  cenieterium  for  coenieterium 
(Gr.  KOL/xrjTrjpiov )  ;  moestus  for  maestus ;  foemina  for  femina ; 
caetefi  for  ceteri  (probably  owing  to  the  influence  of  Gr.  koI  hepot)  ; 


IO 


Pronunciation. 


coelebs  for  caelebs ;  coecus  for  caecus .  Some  of  these  false  forms 
are  unfortunately  still  printed  in  our  texts  of  the  classical  writers. 

12.  au  was  a  true  diphthong,  pronounced  like  Eng.  ow  in 
how.  Cf.  Greek  transliterations  of  Latin  proper  names  such  as 
HaovWivr)  (Paulina),  <J>aoo-ru/os  (Faustinas) . 

13.  eu  appears  in  Latin  in  only  a  few  words,  and  in  these  is  of 
secondary  origin.  Primitive  Latin  eu  early  became  ou,  whence  u. 
The  chief  Latin  words  that  have  eu  are  :  ceu ,  neu,  seu,  neuter , 
neutiquam ,  neutique ,  heu.  The  combination  appears  also  in 
numerous  proper  names  borrowed  from  the  Greek,  e.g.  Europa , 
Teucer.  In  all  these  the  sound  was  that  of  a  genuine  diphthong, 
i.e.  an  <?-sound  quickly  followed  by  an  w-sound,  both  being  uttered 
under  one  stress. 

14.  ui  appears  to  have  been  a  genuine  diphthong  in  cui,  huic , 
and  hui  (the  interjection).  In  the  first  two  of  these  words  ui  was 
certainly  of  secondary  origin.  Quintilian  tells  us  (i.  7.  27)  that 
in  his  boyhood  (about  50  a.d.)  quoi  was  still  in  use,  and  that  its 
pronunciation  was  substantially  identical  with  that  of  qui  (the 
Nom.).  Some  scholars  have  accordingly  inferred  that  qui  and  cui 
were  simply  graphically  distinct,  being  alike  in  pronunciation. 
Consistently  with  this  view  they  regard  the  u  in  cui  as  =  v,  and 
mark  the  i  long,  viz.  cui.  But  if  the  facts  were  thus,  we  should 
expect  cui ,  when  resolved  into  two  syllables  in  verse  by  metrical 
license,  to  be  an  iambus  (w  _).  Such  is  not  the  case.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  find  it  appearing  as  a  pyrrhic  (w  w),  and  that, 
too,  at  just  about  the  time  when,  if  we  may  credit  Quintilian,  cui 
began  to  supersede  quoi ,  viz.  soon  after  50  a.d.  Apparently  the 
earliest  instance  of  the  resolution  mentioned  is  in  Seneca,  Troades 
852  cuicumque  (55  a.d.?).  Subsequently  in  Martial  and  Juvenal 
such  resolutions  are  frequent.  See  Neue,  Formenlehre  der 
Lateinischen  Sp?‘ache,  3d  ed.,  ii,  p.  454.  Very  late  writers  (eg. 
Prudentius,  400  a.d.,  Venantius  Fortunatus,  600  a.d.),  it  is  true, 


The  Sound  of  j. 


1 1 

sometimes  have  cut  in  verse,  but  there  is  apparently  no  trace  of 
any  such  resolution  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Empire.  The  i 
of  cui  would  therefore  seem  to  have  been  short,  and  to  have 
blended  with  the  u  to  produce  a  diphthong.  It  must,  of  course, 
be  conceded  that  the  pronunciation  of  cui  could  not  have  been 
widely  different  from  qui;  yet  it  must  have  been  sufficiently  so  to 
keep  the  two  words  distinctly  separate  in  Roman  speech,  a  view 
which  receives  the  very  strongest  confirmation  in  the  fact  that  the 
modern  Italian  has  chi  as  the  descendant  of  Latin  qui ,  but  cui 
(with  diphthongal  ui)  as  the  descendant  of  Latin  cui. 

THE  CONSONANTS. 

The  Semivowels,  /,  v. 

15.  J.  i .  J  (Seelmann,  Aussprciche  des  Latein ,  p.  231  ff.)  was 
like  our  y  in  yes.  Evidences  : 

a)  A  single  character  (I)  sufficed  with  the  Romans  to  indicate 
both  the  vowel  i  and  the  consonant  j  (i  consonans) .  This  would 
indicate  a  close  proximity  in  sound  between  i  and  /,  a  proximity 
manifestly  existing  if  Latin  j  was  English  y.  Cf.,  for  example, 
English  New  York  with  a  hypothetical  New  I-ork.  In  any 
English  word  the  vowel  i  may  easily  be  made  to  pass  into  the 
semivowel  y  by  energetically  stressing  either  the  preceding  or  the 
following  vowel. 

b)  The  Roman  grammarians  nowhere  suggest  any  essential 
difference  in  sound  between  the  vowel  and  consonant  functions  of 
the  character  I,  as  they  almost  certainly  would  have  done  had  the 
consonant  been  other  than  the  corresponding  semivowel.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  grammarians  repeatedly  suggest  a  close  proximity 
in  the  pronunciation  of  i  and  j.  Thus  Nigidius  Figulus  is  cited 
by  Gellius  ( Nodes  Attic ae  xix.  14.  6)  as  warning  against  the 
conception  that  I  in  Iam,  Iecvr,  Iocvs  is  a  vowel.  Such  a 
warning  can  have  no  meaning  whatever,  except  upon  the  assump- 


12 


Pronunciation. 


tion  that  the  sound  of  j  was  very  close  to  that  of  i,  i.e.  was  the 
semivowel  y.  CJ.  Quintilian  i.  4.  10. 

c )  In  the  poets,  i,  when  followed  by  another  vowel,  often 
becomes  consonantal,  uniting  with  the  preceding  consonant  to 
make  position ;  e.g.  abietis,  parietem,  ariete  become  abjetis ,  par- 
jetem ,  arjete.  In  these  cases  the  consonant  sound  can  have  been 
none  other  than  that  of  the  semivowel  y.  Cf.  also  nunciam 
(trisyllabic),  compounded  of  nunc  and  jam;  etiam ,  compounded 
of  et  and  jam. 

d)  Greek  transliterations  of  Latin  words  employ  1  as  the  near¬ 
est  equivalent  of  Latin  j,  e.g.  ’IovAtos  (=  Julius ). 

2.  In  the  last  centuries  of  the  Empire  j  seems  to  have 
progressed,  at  least  in  the  vulgar  speech,  to  a  genuine  spirant, 
probably  similar  in  sound  to  that  of  s  in  the  English  word  azure. 
Thus  in  late  inscriptions  (from  the  third  century  on)  we  find  such 
spellings  as  Zesu  (= Jcsu),  zunior  {—junior),  sustus  (= justus ), 
Giove  ( =  Jove).  CJ.  Seelmann,  Aussprache  des  Latein ,  p.  239. 

3.  Intervocalic  j  had  a  tendency  to  develop  an  f-glide  before  it, 
which  was  sometimes  expressed  in  writing.  Inscriptions  show 
maiior,  Pompeiivs.  According  to  Quintilian  i.  4.  n,  Cicero  wrote 
aiio,  Maiia. 

16.  i.  V.  V  is  a  labial  semivowel,  with  the  sound  of  English 
w.  It  corresponds  to  the  vowel  u,  just  as  j  corresponds  to  the 
vowel  i. 

The  evidences  : 

a)  A  single  character  (V)  sufficed  with  the  Romans  to  indi¬ 
cate  the  vowel  u  {u  vbcdlis)  and  the  consonant  u  {u  consonans) . 
This  indicates  a  close  proximity  in  sound  between  u  and  v,  —  a 
proximity  which  manifestly  existed,  if  Latin  v  was  English  w. 
For  the  vowel  u  naturally  passes  into  w  before  a  vowel  whenever 
either  the  preceding  or  following  syllable  is  energetically  stressed. 
For  example,  tenuia  easily  becomes  tenvia ,  and  must  frequently 
be  so  read  in  verse. 


The  Sound  of  v. 


13 


b)  The  Roman  grammarians  (at  least  down  to  the  close  of  the 
first  century  a.d.)  nowhere  suggest  any  essential  difference  in 
sound  between  the  vowel  and  consonant  functions  of  the  charac¬ 
ter  V,  no  more  than  in  the  case  of  the  analogous  I.  On  the  other 
hand,  just  as  in  the  case  of  I,  they  repeatedly  suggest  that  u  and 
v  were  very  similar.  Thus  Nigidius  Figulus,  cited  above  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  discussion  of  /,  observes  in  the  same  passage 
(Gellius  xix.  14.  6)  that  initial  V  in  Valerivs,  Volvsivs,  is  not  a 
vowel,  an  observation  which  would  be  pointless  unless  the  sound 
of  v  had  been  closely  similar  to  that  of  u,  i.e.  had  been  that  of  w. 
Quintilian  in  i.  4.  10  gives  a  similar  warning. 

c)  The  same  Nigidius  Figulus  (Gellius  x.  4.  4)  says  that  in  pro¬ 
nouncing  vos  we  thrust  out  the  edges  of  our  lips,  which  conforms 
physiologically  to  the  pronunciation  of  v  as  English  w. 

d)  The  Greek  ordinarily  transliterates  Latin  v  by  means  of  ov, 
as  OuoAepio?  (  Valerius),  OvoXctkol  (  Volsci ),  Alovux  (. Livia ). 

e )  U  and  v  often  interchange  in  the  same  words.  Thus  early 
Latin  Id-ru-a  {e.g.  Plautus  Captivi  598)  appears  later  as  a  dis¬ 
syllable,  larva.  Similarly  mi-lu-os  appears  later  as  milvus.  In 
verse,  silva  occurs  repeatedly  as  si-lu-a,  e.g.  Horace,  Odes  i.  23.  4. 
On  the  other  hand,  tenuis ,  puella ,  etc .,  often  appear  as  tenvis ,  pvella , 
etc.  This  interchange  is  conceivable  only  upon  the  supposition 
that  the  vowel  and  consonant  sounds  were  closely  akin.  Cf.  also 
Velius  Longus  (close  of  the  first  century  a.d.)  in  Keil  vii.  75.  10, 
to  the  effect  that  a-cu-ajn,  1 1  shall  sharpen,’  and  aquam,  ‘  water  ’ 
(where  qu  is  simply  the  traditional  inconsistent  spelling  for  qv), 
were  liable  to  confusion  in  his  day.  Caesellius  (see  Seelmann, 
Aussprache  des  Latein ,  p.  234)  cannot  say  whether  tenuis  is  a  dis¬ 
syllable  or  a  trisyllable ;  while  in  the  Romance  languages  we 
sometimes  find  doublets  pointing  to  parallel  Latin  forms,  one  with 
u  vocdlis ,  another  with  u  consonans ,  e.g.  Old  French  teneve  (repre¬ 
senting  a  Latin  te-nu-is)  and  tenve  (representing  a  Latin  ten-vis). 
Italian  soave  points  to  the  existence  of  a  Latin  su-d-vis  by  the  side 
of  sua-  {i.e.  sva ••)  vis.  Cf.  Seelmann,  p.  234. 


14 


Pronunciation. 


f)  The  phonetic  changes  incident  to  word-formation  also  point 
in  the  direction  of  the  w-sound  of  v.  Thus  from  faveo  (root  fav-) 
we  get  fau-tor  (for  *fav-tor)  ;  from  lavo  (root  lav-)  we  get  lau-tus 
(for  *lav-tus).  In  such  cases  the  semivowel  v  naturally  becomes 
the  vowel  u  and  combines  with  the  preceding  vowel  to  form  a 
diphthong.  Had  v  been  a  spirant,  either  labio-dental,  like  our 
English  v,  or  bilabial,  it  would  naturally  have  become  f  before  t 
in  the  foregoing  examples.  Cf .,  for  example,  our  English  haf  to 
(colloquial)  for  hav(e)  to. 

g)  The  contracted  verb-forms,  such  as  amasti  for  amavisti , 
delesti  for  delevisti ,  audisti  for  audivisfi ,  commossem  for  commo- 
vissem ,  all  point  to  a  semi-vocalic  sound  for  v,  since  this  sound 
easily  disappears  between  vowels  in  an  unstressed  syllable.  Cf. 
English  Hawarden ,  pronounced  Harden;  toward ,  pronounced 
ford. 

The  evidence  given  under  f)  and  g)  holds,  of  course,  only  for 
the  formative  period  of  the  language ;  but  it  is  valuable  as  cor¬ 
roborative  testimony.  For  Latin  v  is  all  the  more  likely  to  have 
been  a  semivowel  in  the  historical  period,  if  it  was  such  imme¬ 
diately  anterior  to  that  period. 

h)  Several  anecdotes  found  among  ancient  writers  give  further 
confirmation  of  the  similarity  in  sound  of  u  and  v.  Thus  Cicero 
(de  Divinatione  ii.  84)  relates  that,  when  Marcus  Crassus  was 
preparing  to  set  sail  from  Brundisium  on  his  ill-fated  expedition  to 
the  East,  he  heard  a  vender  of  figs  on  the  street  cry  out  Cauneas , 
really  the  name  of  a  variety  of  figs,  but  which  Cicero  suggests 
was  intended  by  the  gods  as  a  warning  to  Crassus,  viz.  cav(e) 
n(e)  eas,  don't  go. 

2.  While  the  above  evidence  may  be  accepted  as  fairly  con¬ 
clusive  for  the  pronunciation  of  Lat.  v  as  w  in  the  best  period, 
indications  are  not  wanting  that  it  had  begun  to  change  to  a 
spirant  sound  before  the  period  of  the  decline.  The  earliest 
testimony  on  this  point  is  that  of  Velius  Longus  (close  of  the  first 
century  a.d.),  who  speaks  of  v  as  having  a  certain  as Jn  ratio,  e.g.  in 


The  Sound  of  v. 


15 


valente ,  primifivo  (Keil  vii.  58.  17).  This  reference  to  aspiratw 
hints  at  the  development  of  v  from  its  earlier  value  as  a  bilabial 
semivowel  to  a  bilabial  spirant,  somewhat  similar  to  our  English  v, 
except  that  our  v  is  labio-dental.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that,  beginning  with  the  second  century  a.d.,  we  note  that  v 
is  confused  with  b}  which  had  also  become  a  bilabial  spirant  at 
this  period.  This  confusion,  which  increases  as  time  goes  on, 
reaches  its  height  in  the  third  century  a.d.  Examples  are : 
biginti  (=  viginfi)  ;  vene  {—bene)  ;  Favio  (  =  Fabib).  • 

3.  Some  scholars  have  sought  further  confirmation  of  the 
spirant  character  for  the  period  referred  to  (100  a.d.  and  after¬ 
wards)  in  the  use  of  Greek  {3  as  a  transliteration  of  Latin  v. 
Beginning  with  about  100  a.d.,  we  find  (3  frequently  employed  in 
Greek  inscriptions  in  place  of  earlier  ov  for  such  transliterations, 
eg.  KovfievTos  (< conventus )  ;  [3epva  ( verna )  ;  KaA/3eu/os  (  Calvinus) . 
Similarly  our  text  of  Plutarch  (about  100  a.d.)  usually  has  (3  in 
Latin  words  (eg.  BaA.qot.os,  BeVovs  =  Venus)  where  earlier  Greek 
writers  mostly  employed  ov.  Now  it  is  claimed  (cf.  Blass,  Pro- 
nunciatio7i  of  Greek ,  p.  109)  that  Greek  (3  at  this  time  (beginning 
of  the  second  century  a.d.)  had  become  a  bilabial  spirant.  How¬ 
ever  this  may  be,  little  support  would  be  gained  from  that  fact  for 
the  pronunciation  of  Latin  v.  For  while  it  is  true  that  the  use  of 
1 3  for  v  assumes  great  frequency  from  100  a.d.,  yet  the  earlier  spell¬ 
ing  ov  still  remains  the  predominant  one.  Eckinger,  Orthographie 
Lateinischer  Warier  in  Griechischen  Inschriften ,  p.  87,  gives  234 
instances  of  ov  as  against  100  of  (3  in  Greek  inscriptions  of  the 
second  century  a.d.,  while  often  the  same  inscription  exhibits  both 
spellings.  Moreover,  occasional  instances  of  (3  =  v  occur  as  early 
as  the  last  years  of  the  Republic.  Eckinger,  p.  87,  cites  five 
examples  from  the  first  century  b.c.,  and  twenty- one  from  the  first 
century  a.d.  The  facts  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Latin  sound  was 
not  adequately  represented  by  either  ov  or  (3 ;  consequently  no 
permanent  equivalent  was  ever  adopted.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectly 
conceivable  that  Latin  v  should  have  been  transliterated  by  Greek 


i6 


Pronunciation. 


ft,  even  at  a  time  when  the  latter  sound  had  not  progressed  to  its 
spirant  stage.  In  fact,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  confusion  in 
Latin  itself,  which  resulted  in  writing  b  for  v,  may  have  contributed 
to  the  increasing  frequency  in  the  employment  of  ft  as  against 
earlier  ov  in  Greek  transliterations  of  Latin  words.  The  two 
phenomena  coincide  so  accurately  in  time  that  the  connection 
suggested  becomes  extremely  probable. 

Even  if  Greek  ft  had  by  ioo  a.d.  become  a  bilabial  spirant  (as 
it  certainly  did  ultimately),  yet  this  would  not  necessarily  prove 
anything  for  the  pronunciation  of  Latin  v.  For  the  bilabial  spirant 
is  very  easily  confused  with  the  semivowel.  Thus  the  dialectal 
pronunciation  of  German  Wein ,  Winter  with  an  initial  bilabial 
spirant  easily  deceives  American  and  English  travellers,  to  whom 
this  sound  is  not  familiar,  and  produces  the  impression  that  an 
English  w  is  pronounced.  The  evidence  of  the  Greek,  therefore, 
is  purely  negative,  and  while  it  seems  probable,  as  already  indi¬ 
cated,  that  Latin  v  at  about  the  beginning  of  the  second  century 
a.d.  had  begun  to  become  a  bilabial  spirant,  this  conclusion  rests 
upon  other  grounds  than  the  evidence  of  Greek  transliterations. 

4.  Gothic  and  Anglo-Saxon  loan-words  have  been  thought  by 
some  to  confirm  the  ze/-sound  of  Latin  v,  but  without  reason. 
Gothic  and  Anglo-Saxon  w,  it  is  true,  appears  regularly  as  the 
representative  of  v  in  words  borrowed  from  the  Latin,  e.g.  Gothic 
wein ,  ‘  wine  ’  (Lat.  vtnum)  ;  aiwaggeli, 1  gospel  ’  (Lat.  evangelium )  ; 
Anglo-Saxon  weall ,  ‘  wall  ’  (Lat.  vallum )  ;  -2 vie  ‘  town  ’  (Lat. 
vicus).  But  here  again  it  is  not  only  possible  but  extremely 
probable  that  the  Gothic  and  Anglo-Saxon  gave  only  an  approxi¬ 
mate  representation  of  the  Latin  sound.  Gothic  could  hardly 
have  borrowed  from  the  Latin  before  the  fourth  century,  Anglo- 
Saxon  not  before  the  fifth,  and  it  has  been  shown  above  that  at 
this  period  Latin  v  had  already  become  a  bilabial  spirant. 

5.  Others  have  cited  Claudius’s  attempted  introduction  of  J 
for  v  as  an  indication  that  v,  as  early  as  Claudius’s  day  (50  a.d.), 
had  progressed  beyond  the  semivocalic  stage.  Claudius,  it  is 


The  Liquids ,  /,  r. 


17 


urged,  while  suggesting  the  employment  of  a  new  character  for 
u  consonans  ( v ),  did  not  suggest  a  new  character  for  i  consonans 
( j ).  Hence  it  is  claimed  that  the  relation  of  v  to  u ,  at  this  time, 
must  have  been  different  from  that  of  j  to  i ;  as  j  was  a  semivowel, 
v,  it  is  claimed,  could  have  been  nothing  less  than  a  spirant.  But 
these  conclusions  would  be  valid  only  upon  the  assumption  that 
Claudius  was  a  competent  phonetic  observer,  and  was  not  acting 
from  mere  caprice.  Neither  of  these  assumptions  would  be  safe. 
Moreover,  there  is  no  other  indication  that  v  had  progressed 
beyond  its  value  as  a  semivowel  as  early  as  Claudius’s  day. 

6.  It  may  be  added  in  conclusion  that  the  development  of 
Latin  v  was  not  complete  even  when  the  sound  had  passed  from 
that  of  a  semivowel  to  that  of  a  bilabial  spirant.  Later  still  (fifth 
or  sixth  century  a.d.  ?)  the  bilabial  spirant  became  a  labio-dental 
spirant  (Eng.  v),  and  with  that  value  passed  into  the  Romance 
languages,  —  French,  Italian,  etc. 

The  Liquids,  /,  r. 

17.  L  seems  to  have  been  pronounced  differently,  according  to 
its  position  in  a  word.  No  fewer  than  three  different  sounds  of 
the  letter  were  recognized  by  Pliny  the  Elder,  as  cited  by  Priscian 
(Keil  ii.  29.  9),  viz.,  1)  an  exilis  sonus ,  as  in  the  second  /  of  ille , 
Metellus  ;  2)  a  pinguis  sonus,  after  a  mute  or  at  the  end  of  a  word 
or  syllable,  as  in  clarus,  sol,  silva ;  3)  a  medius  sonus,  viz.  when 
initial,  as  in  leclus.  Just  what  the  differences  were  which  were 
involved  in  these  three  modes  of  articulation  cannot  now  be  deter¬ 
mined.  Lindsay  {Latin  Language ,  p.  90)  thinks  that  Pliny’s 
exilis  sonus  and  medius  sonus  were  our  normal  English  l,  as  is  the 
case  in  the  Italian  descendants  of  the  Latin  words  cited  by  Pliny. 
The  pinguis  sonus,  Lindsay  suggests,  consisted  in  an  /-glide  pre¬ 
ceding  or  following  the  /  itself,  eg.  a1  Iter,  cllarus.  The  basis  for 
this  view  he  finds  in  the  Romance  development  of  this  l  pingue ; 
e.g.  clarus  becomes  Italian  chiaro ;  flumen  becomes  flume ;  alter 
becomes  French  autre. 


i8 


Pronunciation. 


18.  R  was  trilled  with  the  tip  of  the  tongue,  as  is  clearly 
described  by  Terentianus  Maurus  (Keil,  vi.  332.  238  f.)  and 
Marius  Victorinus  (Keil,  vi.  34.  15).  The  name  litera  canina , 
given  to  r  as  early  as  Lucilius  (ix.  29,  M.)  agrees  excellently  with 
the  enunciation  attributed  to  the  letter. 

The  Nasals,  m,  n. 

19.  M.  Initial  and  medial  m  probably  had  the  sound  of  normal 
English  m .  As  regards  final  m,  the  true  pronunciation  can  prob¬ 
ably  never  be  satisfactorily  determined.  When  the  following  w'ord 
began  with  a  vowel,  final  m  was  only  imperfectly  uttered.  Cf. 
Quintilian,  ix.  4.  40  :  ‘  When  m  is  final  and  comes  in  contact  with 
the  initial  vowel  of  the  following  word  so  that  it  can  pass  over  to 
the  latter,  though  it  is  written,  yet  it  is  only  slightly  uttered,  as  in 
multum  ille ,  quantum  erat ,  so  as  to  give  the  sound  of  a  new  letter, 
as  it  were.  For  it  does  not  absolutely  vanish,  but  is  obscured, 
and  is  a  sort  of  sign  that  the  two  vowels  do  not  become  merged.’ 
In  ix.  4.  39  Quintilian  tells  us  that  Cato  the  Elder  wrote  diee  for 
diem ,  evidently  in  recognition  of  the  vanishing  value  of  the  final 
nasal.  Velius  Longus  also  tells  us  (Keil,  vii.  80,  12  ff.)  that  Verrius 
Flaccus,  who  lived  under  Augustus,  proposed  a  mutilated  M,  viz.  IV, 
to  indicate  the  sound  of  final  m  before  an  initial  vowel.  Seelmann 
(. Aussprache  des  Latein ,  p.  356),  following  the  above  statement 
of  Quintilian,  defines  the  sound  in  question  as  a  ‘  bilabial  nasal 
spirant  with  partial  closure .’  This  seems  a  just  statement.  Cf. 
also  Lindsay,  Latin  Language ,  p.  62.  Evidently  the  sound  must 
have  been  quite  inconsiderable,  as  it  did  not  interfere  with  the 
slurring  of  final  syllables  in  -m  with  a  following  initial  vowel,  as  is 
abundantly  shown  in  poetry  by  the  frequency  of  elision.  Ellis 
(  Quantitative  Pro?iunciatio?i  of  Latin ,  p.  60  ff.,  especially  p.  65) 
interprets  the  testimony  of  Quintilian  above  cited  to  mean  that 
final  m  was  not  omitted  ( neque  eximitur ),  but  was  inaudible 
( obscuratur )  before  an  initial  vowel.  The  same  scholar  also 
maintains  that  every  final  m  was  inaudible,  irrespective  of  the 


The  Nasals,  in,  n. 


19 


initial  sound  of  the  following  word.  In  case  this  initial  sound  was 
a  consonant,  Ellis  (pp.  55,  65)  holds  that  the  consonant  was 
doubled  in  pronunciation ;  e.g.  quorum  pars ,  he  thinks,  was  pro¬ 
nounced  quoruppars ,  etc.  This  view,  however,  is  based  on  the 
improbable  assumption  that  the  Italian  with  its  giammai  (for  gia 
mai),  ovvero  (for  o  vero),  etc.,  gives  the  clue  to  the  pronuncia¬ 
tion  of  Latin  final  m.  Latin  inscriptions,  it  is  true,  in  the  earliest 
times  show  that  final  m  was  frequently  omitted  in  writing.  Thus 
the  Scipio  inscriptions,  the  earliest  of  which  may  antedate  250  b.c., 
show  in  omitted  before  consonants  as  well  as  before  vowels,  but  in 
good  inscriptions  of  the  classical  period  final  m  was  not  omitted 
with  any  frequency ;  hence  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  this 
source. 

20.  N.  1.  N  was  the  dental  nasal  as  m  was  the  labial.  When 
initial,  n  could  hardly  have  differed  materially  from  English  n  in 
the  same  situation.  The  same  is  true  also  of  n  in  the  interior  of 
a  word  when  followed  by  other  dental  sounds  (as  t,  d,  s,  n)  or  a 
vowel.  Before  the  gutturals,  n  took  on  the  sound  of  ng  in  sing, 
eg.  in  ango,  uncus ;  i.e.  n  here  became  the  guttural  nasal,  a  sound 
as  different  from  dental  n  as  is  m,  and  quite  as  much  entitled  to 
representation  by  a  separate  character.  Nigidius  Figulus  recog¬ 
nized  the  individuality  of  the  sound  in  calling  it  n-adulterinum 
(Gellius,  xix.  14.  7).  Certain  Roman  writers,  according  to 
Priscian  (Keil,  ii.  30.  13),  followed  the  analogy  of  the  Greek,  and 
used  g  (=y  nasal)  for  the  n-adulterinum,  eg.  Agchises,  agceps, 
aggulus.  The  Greek  phoneticians  gave  7  in  such  situations  the 
name  Agma  (as  distinguished  from  Gamma),  and  their  Roman 
successors  sometimes  employed  the  same  designation  for  the 
sound,  eg.  Priscian  in  the  passage  just  cited. 

2.  'The  vowel  before  nf,  ns,  as  is  well  known,  was  regularly 
long  in  Latin.  See  §  37.  Some  have  assumed,  in  consequence, 
that  a  nasal  vowel  was  pronounced  in  such  cases,  particularly 
Johannes  Schmidt  (Zur  Geschichte  des  Indogermanischen  Vokal- 


20 


Pronunciation. 


ismus  I.  p.  98  ff.).  The  chief  basis  of  this  hypothesis  was  found 
in  the  omission  of  n  before  i-  in  inscriptions,  e.g.  cosol  (for  consul ), 
cesor,  trasitv.  Adjectives  in  -ensimus  and  adverbs  in  -Pens  were 
also  often  written  -esimus,  -ies,  e.g.  vicesimus  or  vicensimus ;  vicies 
or  viciens.  Velius  Longus  (Keil,  vii.  78-79)  tells  us  that  Cicero 
pronounced  forensia  as  foresia ,  and  Megalensia  as  Mega/esia, 
while  in  adjectives  in  -osus  the  n  was  permanently  lost.  Greek 
transliterations  of  Latin  words  also  frequently  show  or  for  vcr  (vs), 
eg.  KAtJ/xt^s  ( Clemens )  ;  Kyo-topivos.  But  all  this  evidence  may 
indicate  nothing  more  than  that  n  before  s  was  unstable  and 
inclined  to  disappear.  There  is  nothing  to  force  the  conclusion 
that  nasal  vowels  were  uttered  in  such  cases  in  Latin,  though  it 
is,  of  course,  possible  that  such  a  pronunciation  existed.  What¬ 
ever  conclusion  be  drawn  with  regard  to  the  nasalization  of  the 
vowel  before  ns  would  seem  to  hold  also  for  the  vowel  before 
n  when  followed  by  other  dentals,  viz.  before  nt  and  nd.  For 
here,  too,  the  n  shows  quite  as  strong  a  tendency  to  disappear, 
if  we  may  judge  by  the  testimony  of  inscriptions,  eg.  secvdo 
( =  secundo)  \  testameto  (=  testamento) .  No  instance  of  the 
disappearance  of  n  before  /occurs  prior  to  the  fourth  century  a.d., 
and  even  then  the  phenomenon  is  of  extremely  rare  occurrence, 
being  confined  to  four  instances,  all  of  which  are  in  the  word 
inferus. 

See  the  discussion  of  Seelmann,  Aussprache  des  Latein , 
pp.  283-290. 

3.  It  should  be  added  that  the  omission  of  the  nasal  occurs 
sporadically  in  case  of  m  when  followed  by  labial  sounds,  as 
Decebris  ( =  Deccmbris)  ;  Capanum  (=  Campanuni)  ;  so  also  in 
case  of  n-adulterinum  before  gutturals,  as  iquirant  ( =  inqifi- 
rant)  ;  pricipis  ( = principis) .  The  phenomenon  under  discus¬ 
sion  is,  accordingly,  a  general  one,  and  may  be  stated  thus : 
The  Latin  nasals  m  (labial),  n  (dental),  and  n-adultefinum 
(guttural),  exhibit  a  tendency  to  disappear  before  labial,  dental, 
and  guttural  sounds  respectively. 


The  Spirants ,  f,  s,  h. 


21 


4.  gn.  It  has  been  held  that  gn  was  pronounced  as  ngn,  i.e.  as 
n-adulterinum  +  n.  The  most  recent  representative  of  this  view  is 
Brugmann  ( Grundriss  der  Vergleichenden  Grammatik ,  i.  §§  500, 
506).  Yet  the  evidence  in  favor  of  this  theory  is  slight,  consisting 
chiefly  in  the  occasional  occurrence  in  inscriptions  of  ngn  for  gn, 
eg.  congnato,  ingnominiae.  But  such  spellings  as  these  could 
hardly  have  represented  the  prevailing  usage  of  the  best  period. 

5.  Besides  the  three  nasals  already  considered  ( m ,  n,  and  n- 
adulterinum) ,  Seelmann  {Aussprache  des  Latein ,  p.  270)  recog¬ 
nizes  another  midway  in  sound  between  m  and  n,  which  he 
designates  by  m .  The  evidence  for  the  existence  of  this  sound 
he  finds  in  the  statement  of  Marius  Victorinus  (Keil,  vi.  16.  4  ff.) 
to  the  effect  that  such  an  intermediate  sound  (neither  m  nor  n) 
was  recognized  in  antiquity.  Marius  Victorinus  compares  the 
sound  in  question  with  the  sound  of  the  Greek  nasal  in  ord/x/?u£, 
where  likewise,  he  observes,  neither  v  nor  /x  accurately  designates 
the  pronunciation.  Seelmann  suggests  that  such  inscriptional 
forms  as  qvamta,  tamta,  damdvm,  semtentiam  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Decenbris,  senper,  ponpa,  inconparabilis  on  the  other,  sup¬ 
port  by  their  vacillating  spelling  the  theory  propounded.  The 
facts,  however,  do  not  seem  sufficiently  clear  to  warrant  a  positive 
conclusion  in  this  matter. 

The  Spirants,  /  s,  h. 

21.  F.  F  is  the  labial  spirant.  In  the  earlier  period  it  is  prob¬ 
able  that  /was  bilabial.  This  theory  accords  with  the  origin  of  / 
which  in  most  cases  is  the  descendant  of  an  original  bh  ;  it  agrees 
also  with  such  spellings  as  comflvont,  comvallem  of  the  Minucii 
inscription  CIL.  i.  199  (122  b.c.).  Subsequently  /became  a 
labio-dental  spirant  as  it  is  in  English  and  in  most  modern  Euro¬ 
pean  languages.  At  just  what  time  this  change  took  place  is 
uncertain.  It  was  complete  by  the  close  of  the  second  century 
a.d.,  as  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Terentianus  Maurus  (Keil, 
vi.  332.  227). 


22 


Pronunciation. 


22.  S.  S  was  a  voiceless  dental  spirant,  like  English  s  in  sin. 
Some  scholars,  as  Corssen,  have  thought  that  intervocalic  s  was 
voiced  in  Latin  ( i.e .  sounded  like  English  s  in  these),  but  there  is 
no  valid  support  for  this  view,  nor  do  the  Roman  grammarians 
anywhere  hint  at  more  than  a  single  sound  for  the  letter.  The 
Gothic  in  loan-words  transliterates  intervocalic  Latin  s  by  s,  which 
represented  a  voiceless  sound  in  Gothic,  e.g.  Kaisar  (Lat.  Caesar ). 
The  Gothic  possessed  also  a  character  for  the  voiced  j--sound 
{i.e.  z ),  and  would  undoubtedly  have  made  use  of  it,  had  the 
Latin  intervocalic  s  been  voiced. 

23.  H.  H  was  a  guttural  spirant  and  was  voiceless  like  Eng¬ 
lish  h.  The  same  uncertainty  manifested  itself  in  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  initial  h ,  as  is  noticeable  among  the  lower  classes  in 
England.  As  a  result  of  this  uncertainty  words  etymologically 
entitled  to  initial  h  frequently  dropped  it  in  the  speech  of  the  less 
cultivated,  while  other  words  acquired  an  h  to  which  they  were 
not  historically  entitled.  Thus  harena ,  haruspex ,  hirundo ,  holus , 
represent  the  correct  spelling ;  but  these  same  words  were  fre¬ 
quently  pronounced  arena ,  aruspex,  etc.,  and  appear  repeatedly 
in  that  form  in  our  Mss.  of  the  classical  authors.  Occasionally  a 
word  permanently  lost  its  initial  h  even  in  the  speech  of  the 
educated.  A  case  in  point  is  anser,  which  comes  from  an  Indo- 
Eur.  word  with  initial  gh,  and  should  appear  in  Latin  as  hanser 
(§  97.  3).  On  the  other  hand  erus,  Timor ,  umerus  are  the  cor¬ 
rect  forms,  but  these  were  frequently  supplanted  by  herns,  humor, 
humerus.  The  Romans  were  fully  conscious  of  their  defects  in 
this  particular,  and  Catullus  in  his  84th  poem  humorously  refers 
to  one  Arrius,  who  said  hinsidias  for  insidids,  and  Hidnids  for 
Ionios. 

Intervocalic  h  easily  vanished  between  like  vowels,  as  is  shown 
by  such  contractions  as  nemo  for  *ne-hemd  ;  prendo  for  prehendo  ; 
praeda  for  * prae-heda  ;  etc. 


The  Mutes. 


23 


THE  MUTES. 

The  Voiceless  Mutes,  t ;  c ,  k  -  q ,  p. 

24.  T.  T  was  pronounced  as  in  English  .ra/fr*.  In  English, 
t  before  i  followed  by  another  vowel  is  regularly  assibilated,  i.e. 
acquires  an  ^-sound,  as,  for  example,  in  the  word  rational ;  but 
Latin  t  was  always  a  pure  t  in  the  classical  period.  Cf.  such 
Greek  transliterations  as  OvaXevrta  (  Valentia ).  In  late  imperial 
times  (not  before  the  fourth  century)  ti  when  followed  by  a  vowel 
begins  to  show  traces  of  assibilation.  Inscriptions  of  this  period 
exhibit  such  forms  as  Voconsivs  (for  Vocontius )  ;  sepsies  (for 
septi'es ).  Probably  this  orthography  was  not  exact,  as  the  sound 
was  rather  that  of  our  English  sh ;  but  the  Latin  had  no  more 
accurate  designation.  The  phonetics  of  the  change  are  as  follows: 
An  original  Vocontius,  for  example,  became  first  Vocontyus ,  i.e. 
the  vowel  i  (very  likely  under  the  influence  of  extra  stress  upon 
the  preceding  syllable)  became  the  semivowel  y.  In  the  next 
stage  this  semivowel  became  a  spirant,  the  sound  represented  by 
German  palatal  ch,  viz.  Vocont-chus.  From  this,  the  transition 
to  the  assibilated  pronunciation  was  easy  and  natural. 

25.  C.  1.  C  was  always  pronounced  like  k.  This  is  abundantly 
proved  by  the  evidence.  Thus  : 

a)  C  and  k  interchange  in  certain  words,  e.g.  Caelius,  Calendae, 
Carthago. 

b )  We  have  the  express  testimony  of  Quintilian  (i.  7.  10),  who 
says  :  ‘  As  regards  k ,  it  should  not  be  used.  Some  write  it  before 
a,  but  c  has  the  same  sound  before  all  vowels .’ 

c )  In  Greek  transliterations  of  Latin  words  we  always  have  k, 
not  only  before  a,  o,  v,  but  also  before  e,  1,  where  if  anywhere  we 
should  have  expected  the  ^-sound  of  c  to  have  arisen.  Examples 
are  :  K iKepo)v,  Kat crap. 


24 


Pronunciation. 


d )  Gothic  and  German  loan-words  borrowed  from  Latin  (prob¬ 
ably  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era)  show  k  for  Latin 
c  in  all  situations,  e.g.  Gothic  lukarn  (  =  Lat.  lucerua)  ;  karkara 
(  =  Lat.  career )  ;  Kaisar  (  =  Caesar}  ;  German  Keller  (  =  cella- 
rium )  ;  Kiste  (  =  cista ). 

e)  The  Old  Umbrian  of  the  Iguvine  Tables  uses  in  its  enchoric 
alphabet  for  c,  and  d  for  ^  (an  s-\ike  sound  developed  from  c 
before  e  and  i).  The  New  Umbrian  of  the  same  tables  is  written 
in  Latin  characters,  and  uses  C  for  c,  but  S'  (or  S)  for  the  j-dike 
sound  represented  in  Old  Umbrian  by  d.  This  makes  it  clear 
that  at  the  time  the  New  Umbrian  tablets  were  written,  Latin  c 
before  e  and  i  had  not  yet  become  assibilated.  Otherwise  the 
New  Umbrian  would  not  have  resorted  to  the  use  of  a  special 
character  (S'  or  S)  to  designate  this  sound.  See  Jones,  Classical 
Review ,  No.  i,  1893.  The  exact  date  of  the  New  Umbrian  tablets 
is  not  certain,  but  they  can  hardly  have  been  written  many  years 
before  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era. 

/)  No  Latin  grammarian  ever  mentions  more  than  one  sound 
for  c,  as  some  one  certainly  would  have  done,  had  c  had  an  .f-sound 
before  e  and  i.  In  paradigms  like  died ,  dicis,  dicit ,  the  change  of 
sound,  had  it  occurred,  would  have  been  too  striking  to  escape 
comment. 

g)  Pulcher  (originally  pulcer ,  and  often  so  written  in  inscrip¬ 
tions)  shows  by  its  aspirated  c  (i.e.  cli)  that  c  must  have  been 
‘  hard.’  Similarly  anceps,  with  its  n-adulterinum ,  shows  that  c 
could  not  have  had  the  sound  of  s.  Otherwise  the  nasal  would 
not  have  become  guttural,  as  we  are  assured  it  did. 

2.  Beginning  with  the  fourth  or  fifth  century  a.d.,  c  before  i 
followed  by  a  vowel  becomes  assibilated,  exactly  as  explained 
above  in  the  case  of  t.  Inscriptions  of  this  period  exhibit  such 
forms  as  felissiosa  (  =  feliciosa )  ;  Marziae  (  =  Marciae).  The 
phonetics  of  the  change  are  precisely  analogous  to  those  already 
described  under  t.  Later  still,  every  c  before  e  or  i  became  s , 
eg.  paze  (for  pace )  in  an  inscription  of  the  7th  century  a.d. 


The  Mutes. 


25 


3.  This  development  of  ti  and  ci  (before  vowels)  to  the  same 
sibilant  sound  led  naturally  in  mediaeval  times  to  the  greatest 
confusion  of  orthography  in  our  Mss.  of  the  Latin  writers.  Thus 
condicid  appears  frequently  as  conditio ;  suspicio  as  suspitio ;  nego- 
tium  as  negocium  ;  convicium  as  convitium.  In  the  case  of  some 
of  these  words,  the  false  forms  have  not  yet  been  entirely  elimi¬ 
nated  from  our  texts  of  the  classic  writers. 

4.  K  and  Q  are  simply  superfluous  duplicates  of  c,  as  was 
recognized  by  the  Romans  themselves.  Cf.  Terentianus  Maurus 
(Keil,  vi.  331.  204  f.). 

26.  P.  P  was  apparently  our  normal  English  p  and  presents 
no  peculiarities. 


The  Voiced  Mutes,  b ,  d '  g. 

t 

27.  B.  B  was  like  English  b  except  before  s  and  /,  where  it 
had  the  sound  of  p.  This  was  simply  the  result  of  the  natural 
assimilation  of  the  voiced  sound  to  the  voiceless.  Inscriptions 
show  repeated  instances  of  the  phonetic  spelling,  eg.  pleps, 
apsens,  optinvit,  opsides,  but  ordinarily  such  words  made  a  con¬ 
cession  to  the  etymology,  and  were  written  with  b.  Quintilian 
(i.  7.  7)  prescribes  the  use  of  b  :  ‘When  I  pronounce  obtinuit  our 
rule  of  writing  requires  that  the  second  letter  be  b ;  but  the  ear 
catches  pi 

28.  D.  D  was  like  English  d.  Late  in  imperial  times  di,  when 
followed  by  a  vowel,  became  (through  the  medium  of  dy-)  a 
sound  somewhat  like  our  j.  The  Romance  languages  retain  this 
peculiarity,  eg.  French  journee ,  Italian  giorno,  from  Latin 
diurnus. 

Inscriptions  show  that  final  d  had  a  tendency  to  become  t,  eg. 
aput ,  haut,  at,  quit,  for  apud,  hand,  ad,  quid.  Mss.  also  exhibit 
the  same  spelling. 


2  6 


Pronuncici  tion. 


29.  G.  G  had  the  sound  of  English  g  in  get.  That  before  e 
and  i  it  did  not  have  the  sound  of  g  in  gem,  seems  clear  from  the 
following  evidence  : 

a)  The  Roman  grammarians  give  but  a  single  sound  for  the 
letter.  Had  g  before  i  been  pronounced  like  our  j,  the  alternation 
of  sounds  in  a  paradigm  like  lego,  legis,  or  leges,  legum,  would  not 
have  failed  to  elicit  comment. 

b )  In  the  Greek  transliteration  of  Latin  words  g  is  always  repre¬ 
sented  by  y ;  e.g.  TeAXtos  (  Gellius ). 

30.  Distinction  between  ‘  Guttural’  and  ‘  Palatal.’  —  ‘Gut¬ 
tural’  and  ‘Palatal’  are  not  interchangeable  terms.  Strictly  speak¬ 
ing,  ‘  Guttural  ’  applies  to  the  c  ( k )  and  g  sounds  produced  in  the 
throat,  while  ‘  Palatal  ’  applies  to  those  produced  against  the  hard 
palate.  The  guttural  or  palatal  character  depends  upon  the  fol¬ 
lowing  vowel.  Before  a,  o,  or  u  the  c  or  ^-sound  is  guttural ; 
before  e  or  i  it  is  palatal.  Cf.  English  kill,  gill  with  call,  gall. 
Latin  k  (used  only  before  a ;  see  §1.3)  was,  accordingly,  always 
guttural ;  the  same  was  the  case  with  q,  while  c  and  g  varied  in 
character  according  to  the  following  vowel. 

The  Aspirates  ph,  eh,  th. 

31.  1.  The  Latin  originally  had  no  aspirates  of  its  own,  and 

was  not  concerned  with  the  representation  of  these  sounds  until 
the  Romans  began  to  borrow  Greek  words  containing  <£,  or  0. 
These  Greek  letters  (as  explained  in  the  Gram??iar,  §  2.  3)  were 
equivalent  to  p,  c,  or  t  with  a  following  /j-sound.1  It  is  not  sur¬ 
prising,  therefore,  that  at  first  the  Romans  rendered  <£,  0  by 

p,  c,  t  respectively.  Thus  in  early  inscriptions  (down  to  about 
100  b.c.),  we  find  Corintvs,  Delpis,  Aciles.  In  the  Captivi  of 


1  Initial  and  final  p ,  c,  and  t,  in  stressed  syllables,  in  English  are  also  uttered 
with  aspiration,  though  we  do  not  indicate  this  in  writing.  Examples  are : 
top ,  lock ,  pot. 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 

The  Aspirates ,  ph,  ch,  th.  27 

Plautus,  verse  274,  the  evident  pun  on  Thalem  .  .  .  talento ,  shows 
that  the  th  was  felt  as  substantially  a  t,  and  in  fact  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  t  is  what  Plautus  actually  wrote. 

2.  Beginning,  however,  with  about  100  b.c.,  Greek  <£,  0  came 

to  be  represented  with  increasing  frequency  in  Latin  by  ph ,  ch,  th, 
and  by  Cicero’s  day  this  had  become  the  standard  orthography. 

The  multitude  of  Greek  words  employed  in  Latin  at  that  time, 
along  with  the  constantly  increasing  attention  paid  by  educated 
Romans  to  the  Greek  language  and  to  Greek  culture  generally, 
naturally  led  to  this  striving  for  greater  exactness. 

3.  As  a  result  we  notice  the  aspirates  gaining  a  foothold  in  cer¬ 
tain  genuine  Latin  words,  e.g.  pulcher,  originally  pulcer  ;  Gracchus 
(after  Bacchus  =  BaK^os),  originally  Graccus ;  Cethegus,  origi¬ 
nally  Cetegus.  An  English  analogy  is  seen  in  such  words  as  island, 
rhyme.  Island  comes  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  igland,  Middle 
English  Hand.  The  s  was  introduced  at  a  comparatively  recent 
date  as  a  result  of  associating  Hand  with  French  isle  (from  Latin 
insula').  Rhyme  comes  from  Anglo-Saxon  rim,  Middle  English 
rime,  ‘  number.’  The  spelling  rhyme  is  due  to  the  influence  of 
rhythm  (Greek  pvOfxos),  with  which  rime  was  associated  in  the 
folk  consciousness.  Cicero  ( Orator ,  48.  160)  tells  how  he  him¬ 
self,  in  deference  to  popular  usage,  was  forced  to  abandon  the 
pronunciation  pulcer,  triumphs ,  Cetegus ,  Kartago,  in  favor  of  the 
aspirated  forms,  pulcher,  triumphos,  etc.  But  he  adds  that  he 
refused  to  pronounce  an  aspirate  in  sepulcrum ,  corona,  lacrima , 
and  some  other  words,  where  apparently  a  popular  tendency 
existed  in  favor  of  ch,  ph,  th,  as  against  the  genuine  Latin  p,  c,  t.  . 
Catullus,  in  the  epigram  already  cited  (Carmen,  84),  humorously 
alludes  to  Arrius’s  pronunciation  of  commoda  as  chommoda. 

In  Bosphorus  (Bocr7ropos)  the  Romans  introduced  an  aspirate 
for  a  tenuis ;  yet  the  spelling  Bosporus  also  occurs. 

4.  With  the  exception  of  ph  the  Latin  aspirates  retained  their 
original  character  throughout  the  history  of  the  language.  A 
proof  that  th  was  still  an  aspirate  in  the  time  of  the  Empire  is 


28 


Pronunciation. 


seen  in  the  spelling  acletarvm  for  athletarum ,  and  aclheticvm 
for  athleticum ,  in  an  inscription  of  about  360  a.d.  (Wilmanns, 
No.  2639).  This  orthography  is  capable  of  explanation  only  on 
the  ground  that  th  was  still  very  close  to  t  {viz.  t  -j-  Ji).  For  the 
confusion  of  c  and  t,  cf.  the  occasional  English  pronunciation  of 
at  least  as  ac  least.  There  is  not  the  slightest  indication  that 
Latin  th ,  either  in  the  flourishing  period  of  the  language  or  in  its 
decline,  had  a  spirant  sound  like  our  English  th  in  this  or  thin. 
The  Romance  languages  regularly  have  t  as  the  descendant  of 
Latin  th,  e.g.  Italian  teatro  (Latin  theatrum )  ;  catolico  {catho li¬ 
ens')  .  Similarly  eh  must  have  always  been  either  a  genuine  aspi¬ 
rate  or  else  the  simple  mute  c,  as  shown  by  the  Italian  in  such 
words  as  carta  (Lat.  charta ),  coro  (Lat.  chorus'). 

5.  As  regards  ph ,  the  aspirate  seems  in  late  imperial  times  (not 
before  the  fourth  century  a.d.)  to  have  developed  into  the  spirant 
/.  Some  have  thought  that  this  change  occurred  much  earlier, 
basing  their  opinion  upon  the  fact  that  Greek  <f>,  which  was  regu¬ 
larly  represented  in  Latin  by  ph,  was  always  employed  to  trans¬ 
literate  Latin  /.  But  <£  was  simply  the  nearest  equivalent  that  the 
Greek  alphabet  possessed  for  representing/.  Quintilian  (i.  4.  14) 
shows  that  the  two  sounds  were  quite  different,  by  his  account  of 
the  Greek  witness  mentioned  by  Cicero  who  could  not  pronounce 
the  Latin  word  Fundanius.  This  seems  to  show  that  the  Greeks, 
not  having  the  sound  of  Latin  /(a  bilabial  spirant),  chose  cf>  (a 
bilabial  aspirate)  as  the  nearest  equivalent,  very  much  as  Slavs 
and  Lithuanians  to-day  reproduce  the  f  of  modern  languages 
by  p. 

In  the  speech  of  the  educated  classes  at  Rome  ph  seems  to 
have  followed  the  history  of  cf>  in  Greek.  The  latter  sound, 
according  to  Blass  {Pronunciation  of  Greek ,  §  28),  did  not 
become  the  equivalent  of  f  before  the  third  century  a.d.,  a  view 
substantiated  for  Latin  by  the  interchange  of  /and  ph  in  inscrip¬ 
tions  of  this  and  the  following  centuries.  The  phonetics  of  the 
change  are  as  follows :  First,  we  have  p  +  h,  i.e.  the  labial  mute 


29 


The  Double  Consonants ,  x,  z. 

c 

-}-  a  guttural  spirant ;  secondly,  the  h  is  assimilated  from  the 
guttural  spirant  to  the  labial,  /  (i.e.  pf)  ;  finally,  the  /is  assimi¬ 
lated  to /,  giving/',  which  is  then  simplified  to /.  Thus  an  origi¬ 
nal  Philippus  becomes  successively  Pfilippus ,  Ffilippus ,  Filippus. 
Cf.  German  Pfah  (the  name  of  the  district  about  Heidelberg). 
The  mediaeval  Latin  designation  of  this  was  Palantium ,  whence 
Phalantium ,  German  Pfalz ,  but  dialectically  often  pronounced 
Falz. 

The  Double  Consonants,  a:,  0. 

32.  X.  X  is  always  equivalent  to  cs,  never  to  gz,  as  it  some¬ 
times  is  in  English.  This  conclusion  follows  from  the  voiceless 
character  of  Latin  s,  before  which  a  guttural  was  necessarily 
assimilated. 

33.  Z.  The  value  of  2  is  somewhat  uncertain.  The  character 
is  confined  exclusively  to  foreign  words,  chiefly  Greek.  Though 
introduced  in  the  first  Latin  alphabet,  it  was  early  dropped  (see 
§  i.  3),  its  place  being  taken  by  G.  Long  afterwards,  —  ap¬ 
parently  about  Cicero’s  time,  —  it  was  again  introduced  for  the 
more  accurate  transcription  of  £  in  words  borrowed  from  the 
Greek.  Prior  to  this  time  the  Latin  had  transliterated  Greek  £ 
when  initial  by  s,  and  by  ss  in  the  interior  of  words,  e.g.  sona 
(  —  £<ovr))  ;  atticisso  (  =  olttlkl^o)).  But  with  the  increasing  use 
of  Greek  at  Rome,  a  more  accurate  designation  of  the  sound  was 
felt  to  be  necessary,  and  accordingly  the  Greek  character  itself 
was  introduced.  Cf.  the  care  exercised  at  the  same  period  in 
designating  the  aspirate  in  Greek  loan-words. 

The  pronunciation  of  0  in  Latin  must  have  followed  the  pronun¬ 
ciation  of  Greek  £  for  the  corresponding  period.  As  regards  £, 
while  it  almost  certainly  had  the  sound  of  zd  in  the  Attic  of  the 
5th  century  b.c.,  it  is  likely  that  by  the  beginning  of  the  Mace¬ 
donian  period  (approximately  300  b.c.),  it  had  become  a  simple  . 
z-sound  (as  in  English  gaze), — though  probably  somewhat  pro¬ 
longed;  for  it  still  ‘made  position,’  as. though  a  double  consonant. 


30 


Pronunciation. 


See  Blass,  Pronunciation  of  Greek,  §  31.  The  same  sound  proba¬ 
bly  attached  to  Roman  5.  For  while  certain  Roman  grammarians 
explain  2  as  equivalent  to  set  or  eis,  their  statements  are  probably 
but  the  echo  of  Greek  discussions  concerning  the  sound  of  It 
is  worthy  of  note  that  one  Roman  grammarian,  Velius  Longus,  a 
most  competent  witness  on  phonetic  questions,  specifically  denies 
that  z  is  the  equivalent  of  set ,  and  asserts  that  it  is  not  a  double 
consonant  at  all,  but  has  the  same  quality  throughout.  (Keil 
vii.  50.  9.) 

Doubled  Consonants. 

34.  When  the  mutes  were  doubled  (//,  elei;  pp ,  bb ;  cc ,  gg)  there 
were  two  distinct  consonant  articulations.  Thus  in  mitto ,  the  first 
t  was  uttered  with  a  definite  muscular  effort,  involving  closure  of 
the  organs  in  the  /-position ;  then  after  a  momentary  pause  a 
second  muscular  effort  followed,  with  the  organs  in  the  same 
position.  See  Seelmann,  Aussprache  eies  Latein ,  p.  no.  Such 
doubled  consonants  do  not  occur  in  English.  We  often  write  //, 
pp ,  cc,  etc.,  but  pronounce  only  a  single  /,  p,  or  c,  e.g.  ut{t)er, 
up(p)er,  etc.  But  in  Italian  and  several  other  modern  languages 
these  doubled  consonants  are  frequent,  e.g.  Italian  bocca,  conobbi, 
cappello. 

The  same  double  articulation  is  probably  to  be  assumed  in  case 
of  doubled  liquids  (//,  rr),  doubled  nasals  {mm,  nn),  and  doubled 
spirants  {ff,  ss),  though  it  is  possible  that  in  some  words  where 
these  combinations  followed  a  long  vowel  they  merely  indicated  a 
liquid  or  spirant  that  was  prolonged  in  utterance,  as,  for  example, 
vallum,  ullus. 

Division  of  Words  into  Syllables. 

35.  The  principles  given  in  the  Grammar  (§  4)  for  the  division 
of  words  into  syllables  are  the  traditional  ones ;  yet  the  validity  of 
some  of  them  is  open  to  question,  —  particularly  of  the  principle 
embodied  under  §4.3:  ‘  Such  combinations  of  consonants  as  can 


Division  of  Words  into  Syllables. 


3i 


begin  a  word  are  joined  to  the  following  vowel.’  In  support  of 
this  principle  may  be  cited  the  testimony  of  the  Roman  gram¬ 
marians,  who  practically  agree  in  prescribing  the  rule  given  above, 
and  some  of  whom  even  include  such  combinations  of  consonants 
as  can  begin  a  word  in  Greek,  e.g.  pt,  ct ,  bd.  See  for  instance 
Caesellius,  cited  by  Cassiodorus  (Keil,  vii.  205.  1);  Terentianus 
Maurus  (Keil,  vi.  351.  879).  Seelmann  ( Aussprache  des  Latein , 
p.  138)  cites  also  the  testimony  of  inscriptions.  Some  of  these 
which  mark  the  division  of  words  into  syllables  by  dots,  apparently 
follow  the  principle  under  discussion,  e.g.  CIL.  vi.  77  he  •  dy  • 
pnvs  ;  vi.  11682  vi  •  xit. 

On  the  other  hand  it  may  be  urged  that  the  principle  laid  down 
by  the  Roman  grammarians  is  merely  an  echo  of  rules  maintained 
by  Greek  scholars  for  their  own  language.  Cf,  for  example, 
Bekker,  Anecdota  Graeca,  iii.  p.  1127  ;  Theodosius  (ed.  Gottling), 
p.  63,  where  the  same  laws  for  syllable  division  may  be  found. 
We  have  already  seen  indications  of  such  irresponsible  borrowing 
in  the  case  of  the  testimony  of  the  grammarians  concerning  the 
pronunciation  of  z.  See  §  33.  Moreover,  we  find  Quintilian 
(i.  7.  9)  advocating  an  etymological  principle  of  division,  e.g. 
haru-spex,  abs-temius.  As  regards  the  testimony  of  inscriptions, 
the  instances  cited  by  Seelmann  are  very  few.  Seelmann  him¬ 
self  (p.  143)  admits  the  paucity  of  the  material  upon  which  he 
bases  his  conclusion,  yet  indulges  the  hope  that  investigation  will 
bring  further  instances  to  light.  However,  in  the  very  inscription 
from  which  he  cites  he  •  dy  •  pnvs  we  find  cae  •  les  •  ti,  and  in 
another  (CIL.  ix.  4028),  which  shows  the  division  into  syllables 
by  dots,  we  find  ses  •  tv  •  lei  *  vs ;  ses  •  tv  •  le  •  10. 

There  is  also  evidence  of  a  phonetic  nature  bearing  upon  this 
question.  It  is  a  familiar  fact  that  in  verse,  when  a  short  vowel  is 
followed  by  a  mute  with  /  or  r,  the  poet  may  at  his  option  use  the 
syllable  as  long.  Obviously  this  license  consisted  simply  in  com¬ 
bining  the  mute  with  the  preceding  vowel,  while  the  liquid  was 
joined  with  the  vowel  following.  Thus  the  ordinary  prose  pro- 


32 


Pronunciation. 


nunciation  a-gri  would  ill  poetry  become  ag-ri,  if  the  poet  desired 
to  use  the  first  syllable  as  long,  i.e.  the  open  syllable  of  a-gri 
became  a  closed  syllable  in  ag-ri  ;  and  a  closed  syllable  is  phoneti¬ 
cally  long.  In  the  same  way  compounds  whose  first  element  ends 
in  a  mute,  and  whose  second  begins  with  l  ox  r  {eg.  ab-lalus, 
ab-rado),  show  that  the  mute  must  have  been  joined  with  the  pre¬ 
ceding  vowel,  making  a  closed  syllable,  since  such  syllables  are 
invariably  long  in  verse.  In  view  of  these  considerations  it  seems 
most  probable  that  in  words  like  doctus ,  magistri ,  hospes,  the  act¬ 
ual  division  was  doc-tus ,  ma-gis-tri ,  hos-pes.  This  division  gives 
us  closed  {i.e.  long)  syllables.  If  we  divide  do-ctus,  ma-gi-stri, 
ho-spes,  we  get  open  syllables  containing  a  short  vowel,  and  it  is 
impossible  that  such  syllables  should  be  metrically  long,  any  more 
than  a  final  short  vowel  before  initial  str  or  sp,  eg.  opera  struit , 
bond  sp~es. 

As  regards  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  Grammar  (§  4.  4),  to  the 
effect  that  prepositional  compounds  are  separated  into  their  com¬ 
ponent  parts,  the  phonetic  evidence  seems  altogether  against  this. 
The  division  per-eo ,  inter-ea,  gives  us  a  closed  {i.e.  long)  syllable, 
whence  it  would  appear  that  the  actual  division  in  such  cases  was 
pe-reo,  inte-rea,  exactly  as  in  ge-ro,  te-ro ;  i.e.  compounds  were 
treated  precisely  like  other  words. 

If,  therefore,  phonetic  considerations  are  entitled  to  weight,  we 
shall  be  justified  in  rejecting  the  testimony  of  third  and  fourth 
century  grammarians,  and  in  assuming  that  they  rested  their  state¬ 
ments  not  upon  phonetic  observation  of  contemporary  speech,  but 
upon  the  traditions  of  their  Greek  predecessors ;  and  in  conform¬ 
ity  with  the  phonetic  evidence  we  may  lay  down  the  following 
substitute  for  §  4.  3  :  In  case  of  other  combinations  of  conso¬ 
nants,  a  mute  +  /  or  r  is  joined  to  the  following  vowel,  except 
when  a  long  syllable  is  needed,  in  which  latter  case  the  mute 
is  joined  to  the  preceding  vowel.  Thus  regularly pa-tris ,  ?na-tris, 
a-gri ;  but  ag-ri ,  when  in  poetry  the  first  syllable  is  used  as  long. 
In  prepositional  compounds,  also,  whose  first  member  ends  in  a 


Division  of  Words  into  Syllables.  33 

mute,  and  whose  second  begins  with  l  or  r,  the  mute  is  always 
joined  to  the  preceding  vowel,  i.e.  the  preceding  syllable  is 
always  long,  e.g.  ab-latus ,  ab-rumpb.  In  all  other  combina¬ 
tions  of  consonants,  the  first  consonant  is  joined  to  the  preced¬ 
ing  vowel,  as  al-tus ,  an-go,  hos-pes,  dic-tus,  minis- tri,  mag- mis, 
mon-strum.  This  principle  obviously  demands  that  x  should 
be  divided  in  pronunciation,  as  was  undoubtedly  the  case.  Thus 
axis  must  have  been  pronounced  ac-sis,  laxus  as  lac-sus  ;  so,  also, 
after  a  long  vowel,  z uc-si  (vixi)  ;  rec-si  ( rexi ). 

Rule  4  in  §  4  of  the  Grammar  may  for  all  scientific  purposes 
be  abandoned,  since,  as  already  indicated,  compounds  call  for 
the  application  of  no  special  principles. 

So  much  for  the  scientific  aspect  of  the  division  of  words  into 
syllables.  It  has,  nevertheless,  been  deemed  best  to  make  no 
changes  in  the  traditional  rules.  For  1)  Experience  has  shown 
that  pupils  ordinarily  divide  their  syllables  with  phonetic  correct¬ 
ness  without  the  aid  of  rules.  2)  The  rules  as  given  are  seldom 
or  perhaps  never  made  a  basis  for  the  actual  pronunciation  of 
Latin,  but  serve  only  as  a  guide  for  printers,  where  a  word  is 
broken  at  the  end  of  a  line.  As  such  a  guide  they  furnish 
convenient  working  rules,  which,  though  probably  wrong,  are, 
nevertheless,  of  world-wide  acceptation  and  application,  and  in 
simplicity  are  superior  to  the  true  ones.  It  should  always  be 
borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the  traditional  rules  are  simply 
mechanical,  and  that  they  probably  do  not  represent  the  way  the 
Romans  spoke. 


CHAPTER  III. 


HIDDEN  QUANTITY. 

-  36.  A  hidden  quantity  is  the  quantity  of  a  vowel  before  two 
consonants.  Such  a  quantity  is  called  hidden,  as  distinguished 
from  the  quantity  of  a  vowel  before  a  single  consonant,  where 
the  metrical  employment  of  the  word  at  once  indicates  whether 
the  vowel  is  long  or  short.  The  quantity  of  a  vowel  before  a 
mute  with  /  or  r  is  hidden  unless  the  syllable  containing  it  appear 
.  in  verse  used  as  short. 

The  methods  of  determining  hidden  quantity  are  the  following  : 

1.  Express  testimony  of  ancient  Roman  writers,  e.g.  Cicero, 
Orator ,  48.  159,  where  the  principle  for  the  length  of  vowels 
before  nf,  ns  is  laid  down  (see  §  37);  Aulus  Gellius,  Nodes  Atti- 
cae,  ii.  17;  iv.  17;  ix.  6;  xii.  3.  Nearly  every  Roman  gram 
marian  furnishes  some  little  testimony  of  this  kind,  and  though 
some  of  them  belong  to  a  comparatively  late  period,  their  evi¬ 
dence  often  preserves  the  tradition  of  earlier  usage,  and  hence  is 
entitled  to  weight. 

2.  The  versification  of  the  earlier  Roman  dramatists ,  especially 
Plautus  and  Terence,  with  whom  a  mute  before  a  liquid  never 
lengthens  a  syllable  whose  vowel  is  short.  Hence,  before  a  mute 
followed  by  a  liquid,  the  quantity  of  the  vowel  always  appears  in 
these  writers,  being  the  same  as  the  quantity  of  the  syllable,  just 
as  in  case  of  a  vowel  followed  by  a  single  consonant. 

Furthermore,  Plautus  and  Terence  not  infrequently  employ  as 
short  many  syllables  which  in  classical  poetry  would  be  invariably 
long  by  position.  Examples  are  the  following  :  juventus,  Plautus, 
Mostellaria  30 ;  Curculio  38  ;  volutitas,  Trinummus  1166;  Pseu- 

34 


Methods  of  Determining  Hidden  Quantity.  35 

dolus  537;  Stichus  59;  voluptas,  Mosiellaria  249,  294;  Amphi- 
truo  939,  and  elsewhere.  These  cases  are  to  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  the  vowel  was  short  and  the  following  consonants  failed 
to  ‘  make  position.’ 

In  some  instances,  it  must  be  confessed,  even  long  vowels  are 
used  as  short,  e.g.  bonis  mis ,  Plautus,  Trinummus ,  822,  fo?is 
pultabo ,  868.  But  these  cases  are  of  a  peculiar  sort  and  may 
be  explained  on  metrical  grounds,  or  by  the  iambic  nature  of 
the  words,  as  in  the  examples  cited.  Cf  §  87.  3. 

3.  Inscriptions.  —  Since  the  middle  of  the  first  century  b.c. 
the  apex  (or  point)  appears  added  to  the  vowels  a,  e,  o,  u  to 
indicate  their  length.  Long  i  was  designated  originally  by  I  (rising 
above  the  other  letters  and  hence  called  i  tonga)  and  by  ei ;  later, 
i  took  the  apex.  Examples  are  traxi,  CIL.  x.  2311  ;  PrIscvs, 
CIL.  xi.  1940;  olla,  CIL.  vi.  10006;  quInqve,  CIL.  vi.  3539  ; 
mIllia,  Monumentum  Ancyranum  i.  16  ;  fecei,  CIL.  i.  551. 

Before  the  employment  of  the  apex  the  length  of  the  vowel  in 
case  of  a ,  e ,  u  was  indicated  by  doubling  the  vowel,  e.g.  paastores, 
CIL.  i.  551  ;  peqvlatvv,  CIL.  i.  202  ;  0  is  never  doubled  in  this 
manner.  This  peculiarity  belongs  to  the  period  130-70  b.c. 

A  thoroughly  consistent  use  of  these  methods  of  designating 
the  vowel  quantities  is  found,  it  must  be  admitted,  in  but  few 
inscriptions.  Of  the  vowels  contained  in  syllables  long  by  posi¬ 
tion  only  a  portion  are  marked,  as  a  rule,  in  any  single  inscrip¬ 
tion.  Certain  official  inscriptions  of  the  late  republican  and  early 
imperial  period  form  an  exception  to  this,  and  exhibit  very  full  and 
reliable  markings,  e.g.  the  speech  of  the  Emperor  Claudius  (Bois- 
sieu,  Insc?'iptio?is  de  Lyon,  p.  136)  and  the  Monumentum  Ancyra¬ 
num,  containing  the  Res  Gestae  Divi  Augusti.  This  latter,  among 
a  great  number  of  correct  markings,  contains  also  some  false  ones, 
e.g.  clvpei,  svmma.  Such  errors  also  occur  occasionally  elsewhere. 

4.  Greek  transcriptions  of  Latin  words.  —  This  method  is  most 
fruitfully  applied  in  case  of  the  vowels  e  and  0.  The  employment 
of  Greek  e  or  rj,  o  or  to  makes  the  quantity  of  the  Latin  vowel 


36 


Hidden  Quantity. 


certain,  wherever  faith  may  be  reposed  in  the  accuracy  of  the 
transcription.  Thus  we  may  write  Esquiliae  in  view  of  ’Ho-kvAivos, 
Strabo,  v.  234,  237;  Vergilius,  after  Ouepyi'Aios ;  Vesontid ,  after 
OveaovTLQiv.  Dio  Cassius,  lxviii.  24. 

The  quantity  of  i  may  also  often  be  determined  by  Greek  trans¬ 
literations.  Thus  et  before  two  consonants  regularly  points  to 
Latin  i,  eg.  Bet^avi os,  CIG.  5709,  =  Vipsanius  ;  Greek  1  points  to 
Latin  i,  eg.  Torpos  =  Is  ter. 

Inscriptions  are  naturally  of  much  greater  weight  in  such  mat¬ 
ters  than  are  our  texts  of  the  Greek  writers.  Cf.  §  3.  e). 

5.  The  vocalism  of  the  Ro mafic e  languages.  — These  languages, 
particularly  the  Spanish  and  Italian,  treated  e,  i,  0,  u  with  great 
regularity  according  to  the  natural  length  of  the  vowel.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  Latin  ~e  and  o  were  close ;  Latin  e  and  o 
open.  Now  the  Romance  languages  have  not  preserved  the 
original  quantity  of  Latin  vowels ;  for  both  the  long  and  the  short 
vowels  of  the  Latin  have  become  half-long  in  Romance ;  but  they 
have  very  faithfully  preserved  their  quality.  Thus  Latin  e  appears 
as  a  close  e  in  Italian  and  Spanish ;  Latin  e  as  an  open  e  or  as 
ie.  Latin  o  appears  as  a  close  o  in  Italian  -and  Spanish ;  Latin  o 
as  an  open  o  or  as  uo  ( ue ).  Similarly  Latin  1  remained  i,  but  1 
became  a  close  e ;  Latin  u  remained  u,  but  u  became  close  o. 
Examples  :  — 


Latin. 

Italian. 

mensis. 

mese  (with  close  e). 

honestus. 

onesto  (with  open  e). 

re  sponsion. 

rispose  (with  close  o'). 

doctus. 

dotto  (with  open  0). 

dixi. 

dissi. 

dictus. 

detto  (with  close  e). 

dux'i. 

-dussi. 

ductus. 

-dotto  (with  close  0). 

The  Romance  languages,  however,  authorize  conclusions  only 
with  reference  to  the  popular  language  as  opposed  to  that  of  the 
better  educated  classes.  In  the  popular  speech  the  tendency  was 


Methods  of  Determining  Hidden  Quantity. 


37 


rather  toward  the  shortening  of  long  vowels  than  toward  the 
lengthening  of  short  ones.  Hence  where  the  Romance  languages 
point  to  a  long  vowel  in  the  popular  language,  it  is  safe  to  assume 

that  the  vowel  was  long  in  the  literary  language.  When,  on  the 

\ 

other  hand,  the  Romance  languages  point  to  a  short  vowel,  this 
testimony  is  not  necessarily  conclusive,  particularly  if  other  facts 
point  clearly  in  the  opposite  direction. 

Again  the  Romance  languages  authorize  conclusions  only  in 
case  of  words  inherited  from  the  Latin.  Many  Romance  words 
represent  mediaeval  borrowing  by  the  learned  class,  as  Italian 
rigido,  cibo ,  metro ,  tenebre ,  pus  tula,  lubrico .  All  such  words 
retain  the  Latin  vocalism.  In  some  cases  it  is  difficult  to  decide 
whether  a  word  has  descended  by  the  popular  or  the  learned 
channel,  e.g.  luxus ,  urna. 

With  all  the  assistance  furnished  by  the  methods  above  enumer¬ 
ated,  there  nevertheless  remain  many  words  whose  vowel  quantity 
cannot  be  determined.  It  is  customary  to  regard  all  such  vowels 
as  short  until  they  are  proved  to  be  long. 

The  following  are  the  most  important  works  of  reference  on 
this  subject : 

Marx,  Hiilfsbiichlein  fiir  die  Aussprache  lateinischer  Vokale  in  Positions- 
langen  Silben.  2d  ed.  Berlin,  1889.  A  work  valuable  for  its  collection 
of  evidence,  but  frequently  untrustworthy  in  its  conclusions. 

Seei.mann,  Die  Aussprache  des  Latein.  Heilbronn,  1885.  p.  69  ff. 

Grober,  Vulgar lateinische  Substrata  Ronianischer  Worter,  a  series  of  articles 
in  Wolfflin’s  Archiv  fiir  Lateinische  Lexikographie ,  vols.  i-vi. 

KoRTING,  Lateinisch-Romanisches  Worterbuch.  Paderborn,  1891. 

Lindsay,  The  Latin  Language.  Oxford,  1894.  p.  1 33  ff. 
d’Ovidio,  in  Grober's  Grundriss  der  Romanischen  Philologie.  Strassburg, 
1888.  i.  p.  497  ff. 

Meyer-Lubke,  Grammatik  der  Romanischen  Sprachen.  Leipzig,  1890. 
Christiansen,  De  Apicibus  et  I  Longis.  Husum,  1889. 

Eckinger,  Orthographie  Lateinischer  Worter  in  Griechischen  Inschriften. 

Munich. 

Further  literature  up  to  1889  is  cited  by  Marx,  p.  xii. 


38 


Hidden  Quantity . 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  FOR  THE  DETERMINATION 

OF  HIDDEN  QUANTITY. 

Vowels  before  ns ,  nf. 

37.  A  vowel  is  always  long  before  ns  and  ?if  \  e.g.  consul ,  infePix. 
This  principle  rests  upon  the  following  evidence  : 

a)  Cicero,  Orator ,  159,  expressly  states  that  in  compounds  of 
con  and  in ,  the  vowel  was  pronounced  long  when  followed  by 
/or  s. 

b)  Before  ns  the  vowel  is  often  marked  in  inscriptions  with  an 
apex ,  as  CIL.  xii.  3102  Censor;  CIL.  vi.  1527  d.  64  c6nst6  ; 
CIL.  xi.  1 1 18  m£nsvm;  the  apex  occurs  less  frequently  before  nf 
e.g.  CIL.  xi.  1 1 18  conficivnt.  But  i  tonga  occurs  repeatedly 
before  both  ns  and  nf ‘  e.g.  CIL.  iii.  67  Inspexi;  vi.  647  Instrvx- 
ervnt;  CIL.  ii.  4510  Inferioris;  CIL.  xiv.  1738  Infanti  ;  CIL. 
x.  4294  Inferri. 

e)  Greek  transliterations  of  Latin  words  often  indicate  a  long 
vowel  before  ns,  as  Kprjo-Krjvs  (=  C res  dens')  ;  TLpovSrjvs  (—Prudehs). 

Vowels  before  gn,  gm. 

38.  Vowels  are  long  before  gn  in  the  suffixes  -gnus,  -gna,  -gnum. 
In  support  of  this  we  have  the  direct  testimony  of  Priscian  (Keil, 
ii.  82.  7),  who  lays  down  the  above  principle  and  gives  as  illustra¬ 
tions  :  regnum,  sfdgnum,  benignus,  maltgnus,  abiegnus,  prtvignus, 
Paetignus.  Inscriptions  also  have  regnvm  (CIL.  vi.  7578); 
sIgnvm  (CIL.  vi.  10234);  dIgni  (CIL.  x.  5676);  privIgno  (CIL. 
vi-  3540- 

This  rule  is  often  formulated  to  include  all  vowels  before  gn 
(e.g.  by  Marx,  p.  1);  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  support  such  a 
principle.  In  gigno,  for  example,  and  in  such  forms  as  cognosc'd, 
cogndtus,  ignarus,  igndvus,  ignoro,  ignoscd,  there  is  nothing  to  show 
that  the  vowel  was  long.  Marx  holds  that  the  vowel  in  these 


1 


Vozuels  before  gn,  gin. 


39 


latter  forms  was  long  as  the  result  of  compensatory  lengthening, 
ignarus  being  for  *in-griarus ,  cognosco  for  *con-gndscd.  But  no 
such  theory  of  compensatory  lengthening  is  tenable.  Moreover,  a 
Greek  inscription  (CIG.  i.  1060)  has  /<oy vltov  =  cognitu.  ’Eym-nos 
also  in  Greek  texts  shows  another  genuine  Latin  word  with  a  short 
vowel  before  gn.  Cf.  also  Latin  ambiegnus  ( ambi-\-agnus ),  which 
indicates  that  agnus  had  a  before  gn ;  for  a  is  retained  in  com¬ 
pounds,  while  a  regularly  becomes  e.  Marx’s  appeal  (p.  1)  to 
the  fact  that  Plautus  always  uses  the  syllable  before  gn  as  long,  is 
of  no  weight,  since  we  should  naturally  expect  gn  to  ‘  make  position  ’ 
in  Latin  just  as  yv  regularly  does  in  Greek. 

Conservative  procedure  demands,  therefore,  that  the  vowel 
before  gn  should  be  recognized  as  long  only  in  words  of  the 
type  mentioned  by  Priscian  and  in  such  others  as  are  supported 
by  definite  evidence.  Some  scholars  have  even  been  inclined  to 
reject  Priscian’s  testimony  altogether.  The  Romance  languages 
might  at  first  sight  seem  to  warrant  this  attitude.  For  we  find 
Latin  dignus ,  slgnum ,  lignum  appearing  in  Italian  as  degno ,  segno , 
legno  with  close  e .  This  close  e  regularly  points  to  a  short  Latin 
i  (see  §  36.  5).  But  it  is  possible  that  the  1  of  Latin  was  short¬ 
ened  in  the  Romance  (see  §  36.  5);  or  it  may  be  that  the  i  in 
the  Latin  words  was  long  but  somewhat  more  open  than  the 
ordinary  Latin  1.  In  this  latter  case  the  close  e  of  Italian 
degno ,  segno ,  legno  ( =  open  1)  would  be  an  indication  of  the 
fidelity  with  which  the  Romance  languages  have  preserved  the 
quality  of  the  Latin  vowels.  This  second  view  is  that  of 
W.  Meyer  ( Kuhn's  Zeitschrift ,  xxx.  p.  337). 

39.  Before  gm  the  vowel  is  long  in  pigmentum  (see  CIL.  viii. 
1344,  pIgmen[t),  and  in  segmenlum  (assured  by  the  Greek 
arjy/xluTa) ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  warrant  the  formulation 
of  a  broad  rule  embracing  all  vowels  before  gm ,  as  is  done  by 
Marx  (p.  1).  Marx  appeals  to  the  analogy  of  gn  in  support 
of  his  contention ;  but  if  analogy  could  prove  this,  it  would 


40 


Hidden  Quantity. 


similarly  prove  that  every  vowel  before  ms  is  long,  after  the  anal¬ 
ogy  of  the  long  vowel  before  ns.  Marx’s  second  argument,  that 
the  syllable  before  gm  is  always  long  in  Plautus,  is  of  no  more 
weight  than  the  same  argument  as  urged  in  behalf  of  gn.  It 
may  therefore  be  seriously  questioned  whether  there  is  any  jus¬ 
tification  in  including  gm  in  the  list  of  combinations  before  which 
a  vowel  is  regularly  long. 

Vowels  before  nt ,  nd. 

40.  i.  All  vowels  are  regularly  short  before  nt  and  nd,  eg. 
amandus,  montis,  amant,  monent. 

2.  Exceptions  : 

a)  Before  nt  the  vowel  is  long  in 

a)  quintus  (from  quinque). 

j3)  the  following  contracted  words  :  contio  (for  coventio ), 
jentaculum  (for  *jejuntaculum) ,  jentatio  (for  *je- 
juntatid),  nuntius  (for  *n  oven  tins  ?). 

y)  Greek  proper  names  in  -us,  Gen.  - untis ,  eg.  Se/inus, 
Selinuntis  (Greek,  SeAivovi/ros) . 

8)  Greek  proper  names  in  -on,  Gen.  -ontis,  eg.  Xeno¬ 
phon,  Xenophontis  (Greek,  Sevo^wvros). 

b)  Before  nd  the  vowel  is  long  in 

a)  the  following  contracts  and  compounds  :  p7rendo  (for 
pt'ehendo ),  riondum  {non  +  duni) ,  vendo  {venum 
do),  nundinus  {novem  dies),  quindecim  {quinque) , 
undecim  {unus). 

/3)  some  Greek  names,  eg.  Charondas ,  Epaminondas 
(-covSas) . 

3.  The  evidence  for  the  short  vowel  before  nt  lies  in  the  fact 
that,  while  in  the  Nominatives  of  such  words  as  c/emens,  crescens, 
cliens,  fons,  gens,  parens,  pons,  pj'aesens,  the  long  quantity  of  the 
vowel  is  assured  either  by  the  presence  of  the  apex,  or  by  a  long 
vowel  in  Greek  transcriptions,  in  the  oblique  cases  the  apex  is 


Vozvels  before  nt,  nd. 


4i 


lacking,  and  in  Greek  transcriptions  the  vowel  is  short,  e.g. 
KA .rffJLrjs  ( i.e .  K Xr/ixrjvs),  CIA.  iii.  1094,  but  K Xrjp.evTo^,  CIG. 
3757;  KXrjfxevTL,  CIG.  Addenda,  1829  c. ;  crescens,  CIL.  xii. 
4030,  but  CRESCENTI,  CIL.  vi.  9059;  KprjcrKrjvs ,  CIG.  6012,  c. ; 
but  KprfaKtvTL,  CIG.  Addenda,  1994,  f . ;  Upalarjs  (i.e.  U  pacer  rjvs), 
CIA.  iii.  1 147,  but  Upacerevn,  Upacerevra ,  CIG.  3175,  399 1; 
Valens,  Greek  Oua Xrjvs,  Frohner,  Inscriptions  de  Louvre ,  120, 
but  OvaXevTL,  CIG.  Addenda,  5783,  c. 

Even  where  a  vowel  is  naturally  long,  it  sometimes  becomes 
shortened  before  nt,  eg.  in  linteum  from  linum  ;  cf.  Greek  Xivnov 
CIG.  8695. 

For  the  vowel  before  nd  the  evidence  is  not  so  full.  We  find 
the  Greek  transcriptions  KaAeVSai?,  Lydus,  de  Mens.  iv.  53,  57; 
<£ovSdvt,os  (i.e.  Fundanius) ,  Bulletin  de  Correspondance  Hellenique , 
ix.  p.  439  ;  also  TWej/So?,  i.e.  tuendus ,  CIG.  5600. 

PONTEM,  FONTEM,  MONTEM,  FRONTEM,  FRONDEM. 

41.  A  difference  of  opinion  exists  as  to  the  quantity  of  the 
vowel  before  nt  in  the  oblique  cases  of  Jons ,  mons,  pons,  from 
(fronds')',  and  before  nd  in  from  (frondis).  Three  sets  of  facts 
are  to  be  considered  : 

a )  The  analogy  of  other  words  in  -ns  (Gen.  -ntis).  Such  words, 
so  far  as  they  are  genuine  Latin  words,  have,  without  exception,  a 
short  vowel  before  nt  in  the  oblique  cases.  See  §  40. 

b)  The  testimony  of  the  Romance  languages.  This  is  as  fol¬ 
lows  for  the  different  words  under  discussion  : 

fons.  The  Romance  languages  seem  to  point  to  an  antecedent 
fontis,fonti,  etc.  Thus  the  Italian  fonte  has  close  o;  so  the  Pro¬ 
vencal  fon.  Spanish  alone  with  its  fuente  points  to  fontem  (Grober, 
Archiv,  ii.  p.  426;  Korting,  Lat.-Romanisches  Wdrterbuch,  col. 

337)* 

frons  (-ndis).  The  Romance  languages  all  agree  in  pointing 
to  frondem  (Grober,  Archiv ,  ii.  p.  426  ;  Korting,  Wdrterbuch,  col. 

345)- 


42 


Hidden  Quantity. 


frons  (-ntis).  Provencal  fron  and  Italian  f route,  with  close  o , 
point  to  frontem.  So  the  other  Romance  languages,  except  Spanish, 
which  has  fruente ,  pointing  to  frontem .  (Grober,  Archiv ,  ii. 
p.  426;  Korting,  Wdrterbucli ,  col.  345). 

mons.  The  Romance  languages  point  unanimously  to  mbntem 
(Grober,  Archiv ,  ii.  p.  426  ;  Korting,  Worterbuch ,  col.  499). 

pons.  Provencal  pon  and  Italian  ponte  with  close  o  point  to 
pontem;  so  the  other  Romance  languages,  except  Spanish,  which 
has  puente ,  pointing  to  pontem . 

If  mere  numerical  preponderance  were  decisive,  we  might  at 
once  conclude  that  all  these  words  went  back  to  Latin  forms  with 
0  in  the  oblique  cases,  and  might  explain  Spanish  fruente ,  fuente , 
puente  (which  should  be  f route,  fonte, ponte,  to  represent  Latin  o) 
as  exceptions  to  the  prevailing  law  of  development.  A  glance  at 
certain  facts,  however,  in  Italian  and  Provencal,  suggests  another 
conclusion.  We  find  it  to  be  a  regular  law  in  these  languages  that 
an  original  open  Latin  o  ( i.e .  short  0,  see  §  36.  5),  when  followed 
by  m,  n,  or  l  -f-  another  consonant,  becomes  close.  Thus  Latin 
tondet  with  open  0,  becomes  Italian  tonde  with  close  o.  Similarly 
respondet  becomes  risponde ;  rhombus  becomes  rombo  ;  policy) pus 
becomes  polpo ,  all  with  close  o.  Just  what  has  brought  about  this 
change  is  not  certain.  D’Ovidio  in  Grober’s  Grundriss  der  Ro¬ 
manis  chen  Philologie ,  i.  p.  522,  thinks  it  was  the  analogy  of  words 
in  on  +  consonant,  om  -f-  consonant ;  and  ol  +  consonant  in  which 
close  o  had  developed  regularly  from  an  earlier  u  (see  §  36.  5), 
e.g.  rompe  (  =  rumpit) ;  onda  (  = undo);  dolce  (  =  dulcis ).  In 
accordance  with  this  principle,  whose  operation  is  certain,  Latin 
fontem,  frondem,  frontem,  montem,  pontem,  would  (assuming  these 
to  be  the  original  forms)  regularly  become  in  Italian  :  fonte,fronde , 
fronte,  monte ,  ponte,  with  close  o,  exactly  as  we  find  them.  The 
admission  of  a  long  0  in  the  oblique  cases  of  these  Latin  words  is, 
therefore,  not  necessary  in  order  to  account  for  Italian  and  Pro¬ 
vencal  close  0  in  their  Romance  descendants.  In  fact,  when  we 
consider  Spanish  fuente,  fruente ,  puetite,  all  of  which  point  to 


Pontem ,  Fontem ,  Mont  cm,  Fro /item,  Fronde  m.  43 

Latin  o,  it  seems  more  reasonable  to  regard  Spanish  monte  and 
fronde  (which  point  to  0)  as  the  exceptions.  Grober,  who  ( Archiv , 
vi.  p.  389)  expresses  himself  in  favor  of  assuming  an  original  fontem , 
etc.,  in  these  words,  suggests  that  Spanish  monte ,  fronde ,  are  loan¬ 
words,  while  fuente  ,fruente ,  puente  represent  an  original  inheritance. 

Briefly,  then,  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  evidence  of  the 
Romance  languages  seems  to  warrant  the  belief  that  the  oblique 
cases  of  the  words  under  discussion  came  into  the  Romance  lan¬ 
guages  from  the  Latin  with  a  (short)  open  o ;  that  in  Italian  and 
Provencal  this  open  o  subsequently  became  close  in  accordance 
with  a  regular  law  of  wide  operation.  Spanish  regularly  developed 
the  open  o  to  ue  in  those  words  which  it  inherited  from  Latin 
(viz.  in  fuente,  f  rue nte,  puente')  \  while  Spanish  monte  and  fronde 
are  probably  loan-words  from  Italian. 

c)  The  third  bit  of  evidence  comes  from  Greek  transliterations 
of  Latin  words  as  found  in  Greek  inscriptions  and  Greek  authors. 
Thus  we  find  4>oi/r^tos  (  =  Fonteius)  in  Plutarch  and  Appian ;  also 
in  an  inscription,  CIG.  iii.  5837,  b  (59  a.d.);  ^povrivos,  CIA.  iii. 
1154  (between  150  and  200  a.d.);  4>povretvo?,  CIA.  iii.  1177 
(about  220  a.d.);  4>povra)v,  CIA.  iii.  1113,  21,  26  (before  161 
a.d.),  and  in  texts;  all  of  which  point  to  Latin  Fronto,  and 
Frontinus,  and  indirectly  to  front-em.  Latin  Montanus  appears 
as  Movravos,  CIG.  Addenda,  4805  b ;  and  we  find  rpifxovTiov, 
Ptol.  iii.  11,  12,  et  passim  ;  7 roVre/x  (=  Latin  pontem)  is  the  text 
in  Plutarch,  Numa,  9;  TrovT^d  (=pontifex) ,  in  Dionysius,  Dio 
Cassius,  and  Zosimus  ;  ttovtl 4>e£,  in  Lydus,  de  Mens.  iii.  2 1  ;  7tovtl- 
<f>iKes,  in  Plutarch,  Numa ,  9  ;  and  Trovrt^tKa,  in  an  inscription  in 
Kaibel’s  Sylloge  Epigrammatum,  Addenda,  888  a.  The  Greek 
never  shows  an  to  in  any  of  these  words,  either  in  inscriptions  or 
in  Mss.  The  evidence  furnished  by  that  language  therefore  is 
unanimous  in  favor  of  o  for  the  Latin.  Nor  can  recognition  be 
refused  the  inscriptions  above  cited  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
late.  As  the  annexed  dates  show,  they  all  belong  to  the  good 
period  of  the  language. 


44 


Hidden  Quantity. 


We  thus  have  the  strongest  possible  grounds  for  writing  fontis, 
frondis ,  etc.  The  analogy  of  other  words  in  -ns  (Gen.  -ntis) 
favors  this  view ;  the  Romance  languages  favor  it,  and  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Latin  words  in  Greek  dress,  as  exhibited  both  in  texts 
and  in  inscriptions,  favors  it.  In  fact  the  evidence  is  complete. 

The  isolated  apex  in  Front  (for  frontem,  as  the  context 
shows),  CIL.  v.  2915,  is  certainly  a  mere  blunder  of  the  stone¬ 
cutter,  as  is  often  the  case  in  other  words,  even  in  carefully  cut 
inscriptions  (see  §  36.  3).  Christiansen,  De  Apicibus  et  I  Longis, 
p.  5  7,  cites  thirteen  such  instances  for  vowels  before  nt. 

Hidden  Quantity  in  Declension. 

42.  1.  It  is  maintained  by  some  scholars  ( e.g .  Marx,  Hulfs- 
biichlein ,  p.  2  ;  Lane,  Harvard  Studies,  i.  p.  89)  that  the  ending 
-um  in  the  Genitive  Plural  of  nouns  of  the  First  and  Second 
Declensions  has  u  in  such  forms  as  Aeneadum ,  deum ,  minimum  ; 
also  in  nostrum  and  vestrum .  The  facts  in  evidence  are  the 
following : 

a)  On  early  Latin  coins  prior  to  the  First  Punic  War,  we  find 
the  final  m  of  many  Genitives  Plural  omitted,  e.g.  Romano, 
Corano.  Coins  of  the  same  date  regularly  retain  final  m  of 
the  Nominative  or  Accusative  Singular,  eg.  Volcanom,  propom 
(  =  probuni).  This  has  led  Mommsen  (CIL.  i.  p.  9)  to  infer 
that  there  was  a  difference  in  the  quantity  of  the  o  in  the  two 
instances.  As  the  o  of  the  Nominative  and  Accusative  Singular 
was  short,  Mommsen  thought  that  in  the  Genitive  Plural  it  must 
be  long.  But  the  material  with  which  Mommsen  deals  is  ex¬ 
tremely  scanty.  Genitive  Plural  forms  occur  in  some  number; 
but  only  a  few  Nominative  and  Accusative  forms  are  found,  viz. 
Volcanom,  propom.  Again,  Romanom  (CIL.  i.  1)  and  Aeserni- 
nom  (i.  20)  show  that  Genitives  sometimes  retained  the  m. 
Mommsen  attempts  to  solve  this  difficulty  by  taking  Romanom 
and  Aeserninom  as  the  Nominative  Singular  Neuter  of  the  Adjec¬ 
tive,  but  that  is  awkward.  The  natural  inference  must  be  that 


-um  in  Deuni ,  Nummum ,  etc. 


45 


there  was  no  system  in  the  omission  of  final  m  on  these  coins. 
The  coins  represent  no  dialect ;  in  fact  they  represent  widely 
separated  localities ;  hence  it  is  no  wonder  if  the  final  m  (always 
weak)  was  sometimes  written,  sometimes  omitted.  In  the  Scipio 
inscriptions,  the  oldest  of  which  may  date  within  a  quarter  of  a 
century  of  these  coins,  we  find  final  m  freely  omitted  in  the 
Accusative  and  Nominative  Singular  just  as  elsewhere.  It  is, 
therefore,  extremely  unlikely  that  Mommsen’s  hypothesis  con¬ 
cerning  the  coins  is  correct. 

b)  An  inscription  of  Nuceria  (C1L.  x.  1081)  has  dvvmviratvs, 
which  Schmitz  (. Rheinisches  Museum ,  x.  no)  and  Lane  (. Harvard 
Studies ,  i.  p.  89)  regard  as  evidence  that  the  u  of  duum  (Gen. 
PI.  of  duo )  was  long.  But  even  conceding  the  correctness  of  the 
apex  in  this  isolated  instance,  it  remains  to  be  shown  that  the 
duum-  of  duumvir  and  duumviratus  is  in  origin  a  Genitive.  Such 
an  etymology  would  involve  the  assumption  that  the  duum-  of 
the  Genitive  Plural,  duumvirum ,  became  transferred  to  the  other 
cases,  replacing  duo  in  earlier  duoviri ,  etc.  Such  an  assumption 
is  extremely  improbable.  It  is  much  more  likely  that  duumvir 
and  triumvir  are  formed  after  the  analogy  of  centumvir.  In  the 
singular  especially  such  forms  as  duovir ,  tresvir  would  have  been 
extremely  awkward,  and  it  seems  probable  that  the  singular  duum¬ 
vir, ,  triumvir  were  for  that  reason  historically  anterior  to  duumviri , 
triumviri.  The  apex  in  the  Nucerian  inscription,  if  this  etymol¬ 
ogy  be  correct,  would  then  be  simply  a  blunder  of  the  engraver, 
as  is  altogether  probable.  The  evidence  in  favor  of  -um  in  these 
Genitives  must,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  of  no  weight,  especially 
in  view  of  the  regular  shortening  of  vowels  before  final  -m  in 
Latin.  Certainly  if  -um  did  by  any  possibility  exist  in  the  days 
of  Augustus,  the  u  had  become  shortened  by  90  a.d.  For  Quin¬ 
tilian  (i.  6.  18),  as  noted  by  Lane  (p.  90),  shows  that  to  his  ear 
nummum ,  Genitive  Plural,  was  nowise  different  from  nummum , 
Accusative  Singular. 

2.  Words  in  -er  of  the  Second  Declension,  and  words  of 


46 


Hidden  Quantity. 


the  Third  Declension  in  - er  and  -x,  have  in  oblique  cases  the 
same  quantity  of  the  vowel  as  in  the  Nominative,  e.g.  ager, 
agri;  f rater,  fratris  ;  acer,  acids  ;  pax ,  pads  ;  ten  ax,  tenacis  ; 
fax,  fads;  rex,  regis ;  nix,  rifaris ;  cornix,  cornicis ;  calix,  call¬ 
ed;  fel,fellis;  os,  ossis  ;  plebs,  ptebis.  Thus  sometimes  the  Nom¬ 
inative  gives  the  clue  to  the  hidden  quantity  in  the  oblique  cases 
(as  ager,  agri ) ;  sometimes  the  oblique  cases  give  the  clue  to 
the  hidden  quantity  of  the  Nominative  (as  cornicis,  cornix'). 

3.  Words  of  the  Third  Declension  ending  in  -ns  (Gen.  -ntis) 
uniformly  have  a  short  vowel  in  the  oblique  cases,  as  already 
explained  in  §  40.  3.  Greek  words  in  -as  (Gen.  -antis),  eg. 
Aias,  Aiantis ;  gigas,  gigantis,  have  the  same  quantity  as  in  the 
original  ( Aias,  Alai/ros  ;  yiyas,  ylyavrod) .  So,  also,  contracted 
Greek  names  of  cities  in  -ovs,  -owros,  eg.  Seliniis,  Selinuntis ; 
and  proper  names  in  -w,  -wi/ros,  eg.  Xenophon,  Xenopho?itis. 
Acheron  (not  a  contract  form)  has  Acheruntis. 

4.  In  all  words  of  the  Third  Declension  ending  in  two  or  more 
consonants  (excepting  -ns  and  -x  preceded  by  a  vowel),  the  hid¬ 
den  vowel  before  the  ending  is  short,  eg.  urbs,  sors,  arx.  Excep¬ 
tions  to  this  principle  are  pl'ebs  and  compounds  of  uncia  ending  in 
-unx,  eg.  deunx ,  deuncis ;  quincunx,  quincuncis.  Before  -x  the 
vowel  is  sometimes  long,  sometimes  short. 

Comparison  of  Adjectives. 

43.  In  the  terminations  -issimus,  -errimus,  -illimus  the  hidden 
vowel  is  short,  e.g.  carissimus,  acerrimus,  fadllimus.  Apparent 
traces  of  a  long  i  in  the  termination  -issimus  are  found  in  inscrip- 
tional  forms  with  i  tonga.  The  word  of  most  frequent  occurrence 
is  piIssimus  ;  besides  this  we  find  a  few  other  words,  eg.  carIssimo, 
CIL.  vi.  5325  ;  dvlcIssimo,  vi.  16926;  fortIssimo,  vi.  1132.  But 
many  of  these  inscriptions  belong  to  the  last  centuries  of  the 
Empire,  when  the  use  of  i  tonga  had  become  an  extremely 
untrustworthy  guide,  as  may  be  seen  by  palpable  errors.  As 
regards  the  frequent  occurrence  of  piIssimae,  piIssimo,  these  may 


A  djec fives ,  Num  erals. 


47 


perhaps  be  explained  on  the  theory  that  i  longa  was  here  used  to 
indicate  not  merely  i,  but  also  the  j  which  developed  in  pronun¬ 
ciation  between  the  two  Fs,  i.e.  pijissimo.  Cf  the  similar  use  of 
i  longa  in  words  like  PompeIivs,  CIL.  ix.  3748.  At  all  events,  in 
the  absence  of  the  apex  in  these  superlatives,  and  in  view  of  the 
absolute  silence  of  the  grammarians,  it  seems  unwise  to  attach 
great  weight  to  the  occurrence  of  the  i  longa  alone.  Against  1 
Lindsay  ( Latin  Language ,  p.  405)  urges  the  occurrence  of  late 
spellings  like  merentessemo,  karessemo,  CIL.  ii.  2997. 

Numerals. 

44.  As  separate  words  are  to  be  noted 

a)  quattuor ,  but  quartus  (see  §  53  under  area). 

b )  quinque  and  its  derivatives,  all  of  which  have  1,  as  quin- 

decim ,  quintus ,  quingenti ,  quinquagintd. 

e)  the  derivatives  of  unus,  undecun ,  undeviginfi,  etc. 

d)  milk ,  millia ,  and  niillesimus. 

Pronouns. 

45.  1.  Nos,  vos  ;  but  nos  ter,  vester ;  nostri ,  vestri,  etc. 

2.  Hunc  and  hanc  have  a  short  vowel,  as  shown  by  the  fact 
that  they  are  sometimes  used  as  short  in  verse,  eg.  Plautus,  Miles 
Gloriosus,  1008. 

3.  I  lie ,  ipse,  isle  have  i. 

4.  The  suffix  -cunque  has  u. 

5.  Compounds  retain  the  quantity  of  the  elements  of  which 
they  are  compounded,  as  quisquis,  cujiisque . 

CONJUGATION. 

Root  Forms. 

46.  1.  Presents  formed  by  means  of  the  infix  n  have  a  short 
vowel,  eg.  fundo  (root  fud- ) ;  f rango  (root  frag-)  ;  jungo  (root 
jug-).  Before  a  labial  n  becomes  m,  eg.  rumpo  (root  rup-) ; 


48 


Hidden  Quantity. 


lambo  (root  lab-).  Care  should  be  taken  not  to  confuse  deriv¬ 
ative  and  contract  Presents  like  vendo ,  prendo ,  with  genuine 
nasal  formations. 

2.  In  most  Presents  the  hidden  vowel  is  short,  e.g.  necto ,  serpo , 
verto.  But  the  following  exceptions  are  to  be  noted  : 

a)  First  Conjugation:  jurgo  (for  jurigo) ,  narro,  orno,  purge, 

tracto. 

b)  Second  Conjugation  :  ardeo. 

c)  Third  Conjugation :  compesco  and  all  Inchoatives  (see 

§  49)- 

d)  Fourth  Conjugation  :  nutrid,  ordior. 

3.  The  quantity  of  the  vowel  in  the  Present  regularly  remains 
unchanged  throughout  the  entire  conjugation  of  the  verb,  eg. : 


ardeo 

ardere 

arsi 

drsurus 

gero 

gerere 

gessi 

gestus 

scnbo 

senbere 

scrip  si 

script  us 

vivo 

vivere 

VIXl 

victurus 

fifo 

figere 

fixi 

fixus 

Thus  inscriptions 

give  fIxa, 

scrIptvm,  1 

~ONSCREIPTVM,  VIXIT, 

VEIXIT. 

But  the  following  exceptions  to  this  general  principle  are  to  be 

noted  : 

a)  died 

dicer  e 

dixi 

diet  us 

duco 

due  ere 

duxi 

ductus 

ced'd 

cedere 

cessi 

cessurus 

The  short  vowel  of  the  Perfect  Participles 

d ictus  and  ductus  is 

assured  by  the  statement  of  Aulus  Gellius  ( Nodes  Atticae ,  ix.  6) 
and  by  the  testimony  of  the  Romance  languages.  (See  §  52.  s.vv.) 

b)  The  short  vowel  of  the  Present  is  lengthened  in  the  Perfect 
Indicative  and  Perfect  Participle,  if  hidden,  in  the  following  verbs  : 

ago  agere  egi  actus 

cingo  ci  tiger  e  cinxi  cinctus  • 

delinquo  delinquere  defiqui  delictus 


In  the  Conjugations . 


49 


distinguo 

distinguere 

disftnxi 

distinctus 

emo 

emere 

emi 

emptus 

exstingiio 

exstinguere 

exstmxi 

ex  stinc  lus 

fingo 

fingere 

finxi 

f  ictus 

frango 

fr anger  e 

fregi 

fr  actus 

fungor 

fungi 

functus  sum 

jungo 

j unger e 

junxi 

j  unctus 

lego 

legere 

legi 

lectus 

pango 

p  anger  e 

pepigi 

pdetus 

pingo 

ping  ere 

pinxi 

pict  us 

pungo 

pungere 

pupugi 

punctus 

rego 

regere 

rexi 

rectus 

relinquo 

relinquere 

reliqm 

relictus 

sancio 

s  an  cire 

sanxi  (?) 

sdnetus 

struo 

struere 

struxi 

structus 

tango 

tangere 

tetigi. 

tactus 

lego 

tegere 

text 

tectus 

tingiio 

tinguere 

tinxi 

tinctus 

traho 

trahere 

traxi 

tractus 

ungo 

ungere 

unxi 

unctus 

So  also  in  compounds  and  derivatives  of  these  verbs. 

4.  The  evidence  for  the  long  vowel  in  the  Perfect  Participles  of 
the  foregoing  list  is  found  : 

a)  In  the  statements  of  Gellius,  who  testifies  ( Nodes  Atticae , 
ix.  6)  to  the  quantity  of  the  vowels  of  actus ,  lectus,  unctus,  and  in 
xii.  3.  4  to  that  of  structus. 

b)  In  the  testimony  of  inscriptions,  which  show  the  following  : 
Actis  CIL.  vi.  1377  ;  redacta  vi.  701  ;  exactvs  Boissieu,  Inscrip- 
tions  de  Lyon ,  p.  136  ;  cInctvs  CIL.  x.  4104;  defvnctis  CIL.  v. 
1326  ;  dIlectvs  vi.  6319  ;  lectvs  xi.  1826  ;  exstInctos  vi.  25617  ; 

INFRACTA  ix.  60  ;  IVNCTA  X.  1 888;  SEIVNCTVM  vi.  1527  6.  38; 

recte  xii.  2494;  tector  vi.  5205;  co£mto  Monumentum  Ancy- 
ranum  iii.  n  ;  tra[cta  (not  certain)  CIL.  vi.  1527  e.  14  ;  sancta 
v.  2681  ;  Oscan  saa(n)htom  (  =  sanctom) . 

c)  In  the  retention  of  a  in  compounds  of  actus ,  tactus ,  f?*actus , 
pacius,  tractus  (e.g.  coactus,  attactus ,  refractus ,  etc.),  which  shows 


50 


Hidden  Quantity. 


that  the  a  was  long ;  short  a  would  have  become  e  in  this  situa¬ 
tion,  as  for  example  in  confectus  for  an  original  * conj actus  ;  acceptus 
for  an  original  *accaptus  ;  ereptus  for  *erdptus. 

d)  For  ductus,  delictus,  distinctus ,  exstinctus,  f ictus,  pictus, 
punctus,  relictus,  tinctus,  the  long  vowel  is  assured  by  the  evidence 
of  the  Romance,  e.g.  Italian  cinto,  delitto, fitto,  relitto,  tinto. 

5.  The  evidence  for  the  quantity  of  the  vowel  in  the  Perfects  of 
the  foregoing  list  is  found  : 

a)  In  inscriptional  markings,  as  conivnxit  (Wilmanns,  Inscript. 
Latinae  104);  texit  (CIL.  x.  1793);  rexit  (CIL.  v.  875); 
traxi  (CIL.  x.  2311,  18). 

b)  In  Priscian’s  statement  (Keil,  ii.  466)  that  rexi  and  texi 
have  e. 

c)  In  the  testimony  of  the  Romance  languages  which  point  to 
cinxi,  distinxi,  exstinxi,  finxi,  pinxi,  struxi,  tinxi,  unxi. 

d)  The  long  a  in  sanxi  rests  upon  no  specific  evidence,  but 
may  perhaps  be  safely  inferred  after  the  analogy  of  sanctus. 

Until  recently  the  principle  was  maintained  (e.g.  by  Marx  in  his 
first  edition)  that  all  monosyllabic  stems  ending  in  b,  d,  or  g,  had 
the  hidden  vowel  long  in  the  Perfect  Indicative  and  Perfect  Parti¬ 
ciple  wherever  euphonic  changes  occurred.  According  to  this 
theory  we  should  have  eg.  scindo,  scindere ,  scissi,  scissus ;  mergo, 
mergere,  mersi,  niersus.  This  principle  was  first  laid  down  by 
Lachmann  (on  Lucretius  i.  805)  for  Perfect  Participles  alone,  and 
was  subsequently  assumed  by  other  scholars  to  apply  to  the  Per¬ 
fect  Indicative  as  well;  but  this  position  is  now  entirely  abandoned. 
Each  long  vowel  must  be  supported  by  specific  evidence. 

Verbal  Endings. 

47.  1.  The  hidden  vowel  is  short  before  ss  and  st  in  the  termi¬ 
nations  of  inflected  forms,  eg.  fuissem,  amavtsse ;  fuisti,  fuistis. 
This  is  shown  not  only  by  the  historical  origin  of  these  formations, 
but  by  such  metrical  usage  as  Plautus,  Amphitruo,  761,  dedisse ; 
Menaechmi,  687,  dedisfi,  where  iss  and  ist  are  treated  as  short 


In  the  Conjugations. 


51 


syllables  by  neglect  of  ‘  position  ’  (see  §  36.  2).  Contracted  forms 
are,  of  course,  an  exception  to  the  above  principle,  as  amasse, 
commossem ,  redisse ,  audisset ,  a?ndsti,  nostis. 

2.  Formations  of  the  type  :  dixti ,  accestis,  jus  ft,  traxe ,  surrexe, 
exfinxem  have  the  same  quantity  as  the  regular  forms. 

Compounds. 

48.  Marx  (p.  8)  holds  that  the  vowel  of  a  monosyllabic  prepo¬ 
sition,  if  hidden,  is  long  in  composition  when  the  preposition  loses 
a  final  consonant.  Thus  he  maintains  a  long  vowel  for  the  initial 
syllable  of  ascendo  (for  *ad-scando) ;  di-stingud  (* dis-stinguo) ; 
suspicid  (for  * sub-spicio) .  But  this  principle  rests  upon  an  un¬ 
tenable  theory  of  compensatory  lengthening ;  see  §  89. 

Inchoatives. 

49.  Inchoatives  in  -sco,  -scor  have  a  long  vowel  before  -sc, 
e.g.  tabasco , fid resco ,  nifesco ,  tremisco ,  adipiscor.  Gellius  ( Nodes 
Atticae ,  vi.  15)  mentions  a  number  of  words  of  this  class  as  hav¬ 
ing  a  long  vowel,  and  implies  that  this  was  generally  true  of  all. 
The  Romance  languages  show  that  -e sco  and  -isco  (-is cor)  had  e 
and  1. 

Irregular  Verbs. 

50.  1.  The  root  vowel  of  esse  is  short  under  all  circumstances, 
e.g.  est,  estis,  esto,  essein. 

2.  Edo ,  £  eat,’  has  a  long  e  in  the  forms  es,  est,  estis,  ~essem,  esse, 
estur,  essetur.  Cf.  Donatus  on  Terence,  Andria,  i.  1.  54;  Servius 
on  Vergil,  Aeneid,  v.  785. 

3.  Marx  (p.  9)  lays  down  the  principle  that  in  compounds  of 
eo,  forms  containing  ii  have  the  second  i  long  before  st,  as  e.g.  in 
interiisfi.  This  theory  rests  solely  upon  the  occurrence  of  inte- 
rieisti  in  CIL.  i.  1202.  But  ei  occurs  elsewhere  in  inscriptions, 
incorrectly  written  for  i,  e.g.  parenteis  (  =  parentis ),  CIL.  i.  1009  ; 
faceivndae  ( =  faciundae) .  It  is  altogether  probable  that  interi- 
eisti  is  another  instance  of  the  same  sort. 


52 


Hidden  Quantity. 


Word  Formation. 


51.  i.  Substantives  in  - abrum ,  -acrum,  - atrum ,  derived  from 
verbs,  have  a,  eg. flab  rum,  lav  acrum,  aratrum . 

2.  The  derivative  endings  -ellus  {a,  um),  -illus  (a,  uni),  regu¬ 
larly  have  e  and  i,  but  the  following  have  a  long  vowel,  viz .  .* 
c  a  fella,  ‘  little  chain,’  anguilla,  Bovlllae ,  lullae,  ovillus,  stilla , 
su illus,  villa. 

3.  The  vowel  is  short  in  - emus  Qernius,  -erninus),  -urnus 
Qurnius,  -urninus),  eg.  hibernus,  taberna ,  Saturnus.  In  vernus 
(from  ver)  the  r  is  not  a  part  of  the  suffix. 

4.  The  vowel  is  short  in  the  endings  -estus  (-ester ,  - estris ,  -esti- 
cus ,  -estas),  -ister  (-istrum),  -ustus,  eg.  caelestis,  domesticus ,  tem- 
pestas,  capistrum,  venustus.  In  semestris,  Justus,  the  long  vowel 
belongs  to  the  stem. 

5.  The  vowel  is  short  in  the  endings  -unculus,  -undo,  -ere ulus, 
-use ulus,  eg.  ratiuncula,  patercidus,  majusculus,  homuncid ;  plus- 
culus  (from  plus)  naturally  has  u. 

6.  In  compounds,  the  connecting  vowel  i  is  short,  eg.  navi - 
fragus,  lectisternium. 

List  of  the  Most  Important  Words  containing  a  Long 


Vowel  before  Two  Consonants.1 


/ 

abiegnus :  see  §  38. 

acatalectus :  Gr.  a/caraX^/cros. 

actutum  :  like  actus. 

ago,  agere ,  egi,  actus  :  see  §  46.  3.  b). 


Alcestis  :  Gr.  ” AKkitjcstls. 
Alecto  :  Gr. ’A XtjktiJ). 
aliorsum  :  for  *alio-vorsum. 
aliptes  :  Gr.  dXelirTrjs. 
Amazon:  Gr.  'A/uutfav. 
am  bust  us  :  see  uro. 


1  The  following  classes  of  words  are  omitted  from  this  list : 

a )  Most  derivatives  and  compounds. 

b )  All  words  containing  ns  or  nf. 

c)  Inchoatives  in  -asco,  -esco,  -isco. 


a)  Some  rare  Greek  loan-words  and  proper  names. 

e )  Nouns  and  adjectives  in  -x,  whose  Genitive  (acc.  to  §  42.  2)  shows  the 


preceding  vowel  to  be  long. 


Word-List . 


53 


anguilla  :  i  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
aprugnus :  see  §  38. 

Aquillius  :  AqvIllivs  :  CIL.  vi. 
12264. 

aratrum  :  see  §  51.  1. 
dr  deb  :  like  aridus. 
dthla  :  Gr.  adXov. 
athletes:  Gr.  adXrjT'r/s. 
atramentum  :  like  ater. 
atriwii :  from  ater ;  also  atrivm, 
CIL.  vi.  10025. 
axillus :  Priscian,  iii.  36. 

B. 

bdrdus,  ‘  stupid  ’ :  from  barb. 
Bedriacum :  BrjTpiaKov,  Plutarch, 

Otho,  8,  11. 

Bellerophon ,  - ontis :  Gr.  -Cov,  -  i cvtos. 
benignus :  see  §  38;  so  also  the  Ro¬ 
mance. 

bestia,  Bestia :  B rjarLas ;  Plutarch, 
Marius ,  9  ;  Cicero,  3  ;  the  Ro¬ 
mance  would  point  to  e. 
bimestris  :  from  mensis. 
bovillus  :  from  bovinus. 
bubrestis :  Gr.  /3ov(3p7]<rTis. 
burrus  :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
bustum  :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance  ;  cf. 
combustus  and  ustus. 

C. 

catalectus :  Gr.  ko.tclX'pktos . 
catella  :  from  catena  ;  catella,  ‘  bitch,’ 
has  e. 

cafillus :  from  catinus. 
cetra  :  better  orthography  is  caetra ; 
see  §  61. 

chirurgus  :  Gr.  xeipoupYos. 
cicatrix:  a  in  Plautus,  Amphitruo 
446  ;  see  §  36.  2. 

ciccus ,  -tun  :  i  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
Cincius :  cIncia,  CIL.  vi.  14817  et 
passim. 


cingo,  cingere ,  cinxi ,  cinctus :  1  in  the 
Perfect  and  Perfect  Participle  acc. 
to  the  Romance ;  see  Korting 
(  Worterbuch,  col.  196)  ;  d’Ovidio 
{GrobeAs  Grundriss,  p.  i.  501  f.); 
cInctvs, CIL.  x. 4104;  see  §  53.  s.  v. 
cldtra,  cldtm  :  Gr.  nXyOpa. 

Clytemestra  :  Gr.  lh\vTaip.7]<jTpa. 
Cnossus  :  Gr.  Kvwacrbs. 
cogo,  cogere,  coegi,  coactus  :  see  ago. 
comburo,  comburere,  combussi,  combus¬ 
tus  :  see  uro  and  bustum. 
comb,  com  ere,  comp  si,  comp  bus  :  0  acc. 
to  the  Romance. 

compingo,  compingere ,  compegi ,  com- 
pactus :  see  §  46.  3.  b). 
conjunx :  conivnx,  CIL.  vi.  6592  et 
passim;  but  conjux  has  u. 
contingo ,  -ere,  contigi,  contactus :  like 
tango. 

contib :  for  co-ventio  ;  §  40.  2.  a). 

corolla  :  from  corona. 

crdbro  :  a  in  Plautus,  Amphitruo ,  707; 

see  §  36.  2. 
crastinus :  from  eras, 
cresco :  Cr£scens,  CIL.  xii.  4030  et 
passim;  Gr.  lh.p'fja kt]vs  ;  also  acc. 
to  the  Romance. 

cribrum :  i  in  Plautus,  Mostellaria , 
55  ;  see  §  36.  2. 

crispus:  Creispinvs,  CIL.  x.  3514. 
Kpeunreivov,  CIG.  Addenda,  4342, 
d.  4.  The  Romance  would  point 
to  i ;  but  see  §  36.  5  fin. 
crusta,  crustum  :  v  in  CIL.  i.  1199; 
the  Romance  points  both  to  crus¬ 
tum  and  also  to  a  collateral  form 
with  u.  Grober  ( Archiv ,  vi.  384)  ; 
Korting  (  Worterbuch ,  col.  232). 
Ctesiphon,  -ontis:  Gr.  -Q>v,  -Qvtos. 
cucullus,  *  hood  ’ :  the  Romance  points 
to  two  forms,  —  one  with  u,  an¬ 
other  with  u  ;  see  Grober  ( Archiv , 


54 


Hidden  Quantity. 


i-  555  ;  vi-  384)  ;  Korting  (  Worter- 
buch ,  col.  233)  ;  cucullus ,  ‘  cuckoo,’ 
has  u. 

cunctus  :  cCncti,  CIL.  ix.  60. 
custos :  KovtTTudrjs,  Lydus,  de  Magis- 
tratibus ,  i.  46  ;  u  acc.  to  the  Ro¬ 
mance. 

Cyclops:  Gr.  Kvk\u)\J/. 

D. 

deligo,  -ere,  delegt,  delectus:  like  lego, 
delinquo ,  -ere,  deliqiu,  delictus  :  1  acc. 
to  the  Romance. 

delubrum :  u  in  Plautus,  Poenulus, 
1175;  see  §  36.  2. 

demo,  demere,  dempsi,  demptus :  like 
e  mb. 

deunx  :  from  de  and  uncia. 

dextdns  :  from  de  -f  sextans. 

duo,  die  ere,  dixi,  dictus  :  see  §  46. 

3 .  a).  Certain  of  the  Romance  lan- 

/ 

guages  (Fr.  dit ;  Old  Ital.  ditto, 
etc.')  point  to  a  collateral  dictus, 
which  Osthoff  ( M orphologische  Un- 
tersuchungen,  iv.  74)  thinks  be¬ 
longed  to  the  colloquial  language. 
But  possibly  those  Romance  lan¬ 
guages  which  point  to  1  have  sim¬ 
ply  adapted  the  Participle  to  the 
vowel  of  the  Present  and  the  Per¬ 
fect.  See  Grober  ( Archiv ,  vi.  385). 
dicterium  :  Gr.  deiKTrjpiov. 

Diespiter  :  dies  and  pater, 
digladior :  for  dis  +  gladior  by  com¬ 
pensatory  lengthening;  see  §  89. 
dignus  :  see  §  38  fin. 
digredior  :  for  dis  +  gradior  by  com¬ 
pensatory  lengthening;  see  §  89. 
dilemma  :  Gr. 

diligo,  -ere,  dilexi ,  dilectus  :  like  lego, 
dirigo,  -ere,  direxi,  directus  :  like  rego. 
dirimo,  -ere,  diremi,  diremptus :  like 
emo. 


'  distingub,  -ere,  distinxi,  distinctus  :  1 
acc.  to  the  Romance;  see  d’Ovidio 
(Grober' s  Grundriss,  i.  p.  502); 
Korting  (  Worterbuch,  col.  304) ; 
cf.  exstingub ;  see  46.  3.  b. 
dolabra  :  cf.  §  51.  I . 
duco,  ducere,  duxi,  ductus  :  see  §  46. 
3.  d)  ;  PERDVXIT,  CIL.  xii.  2346  et 
passim. 

E. 

ebrius :  e  regularly  in  Plautus,  eg.  Tri- 
nummus,  812;  see  §  36.  2. 
eclipsis  :  Gr.  e/cAen^ts. 
effringo,  -ere,  effregi,  effr actus :  like 
frango. 

emo,  emere,  emi,  emptus:  see  §  46. 
3-  &)- 

emungo,  -ere,  - ,  emunctus  :  u  acc. 

to  the  Romance;  see  d’Ovidio 
(Grober' s  Grundriss,  i.  p.  515). 
erigo,  -ere,  erexi,  erectus  :  like  rego. 
esca  :  e  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
Esquiliae,  Esquilinus  :  Gr.  ’Hcr/cuAiVos, 
in  Strabo,  v.  234,  237. 

Etruscus  :  cf.  Etruria  ;  Gr.  ’ETpovaxos. 
existimo  :  from  ex  and  aestimo ;  EXl- 
STIMAVERVNT,  CIL.  V.  5050. 
exordium  :  from  ordior. 
exstingub,  -ere,  exstinxi,  exstinctus : 
extInctos,  CIL.  vi.  25617;  cf 
distingub ;  see  46.  3.  b. 
extrabr dinar ius :  from  ordo. 

F. 

favilla  :  favIlla,  CIL.  v.  3143.  The 
Romance  also  seems  to  point  to  t. 
fellb  :  from  same  root  as  femina  ;  Gr. 
BrfKvs. 

festivus  :  from  festus. 
festus  :  from  the  same  root  as  feriae 
(=  *fes-iae),  ‘holiday’;  FfcsTVS  in 
CIL.  i.,  Fasti  Praenestini  for  April 
25th.  So  also  in  the  proper  name : 


Word-List. 


55 


Festus :  FfesTVS,  CIL.  xii.  3179;  FIlsti, 
v.  2627;  FfesTAE,  iii.  5353;  Gr. 
$t}<ttos,  CIA.  iii.  635  and  fre¬ 
quently.  The  Romance  points  to 
e,  indicating  that  e  of  the  classical 
period  ultimately  became  reduced; 
see  §  36.  5. 

figd,  figere,  fixi,  fixus  :  fIxa,  Afonu- 
mentum  Ancyranum,  \i.  18;  2  acc. 
to  the  Romance. 

Jingo,  finger e,  fmxi,  fetus  :  1  acc.  to 
the  Romance;  see  §  53  s.  v. 
fir mns :  fIrmvm,  CIL.  iv.  175  et 
passim;  the  Romance  points  to  i, 
showing  that  i  of  the  classical  pe¬ 
riod  had  become  reduced;  see 

_§  36.  5- 

Jlabrum  :  see  §  51.  1. 
fTigo ,  -ere,  -Jlixi,  -Jlictus :  AFLEICTA, 
CIL.  i.  1175;  the  Romance  also 
points  to  i. 
jlbsculus  :  from  Jibs, 
forma :  see  Donatus  on  Terence, 
Phormio,  28;  (pupp.7)  in  Greek  in¬ 
scriptions;  Romance  also  shows  0. 
formula  :  from  forma, 
frango,  -ere,  fregi,  fradus  :  see  §  46. 
3-  b). 

frigo,  -ere, - ,  frictus :  i  acc.  to  the 

Romance. 

fructus  :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance.  Old 
French  froit  points  to  a  collateral 
fr iictus ;  see  Osthoff,  Geschichte  des 
Perfects,  p.  523. 

fruor,  frui,  fructus  sum:  u  acc.  to 
the  Romance. 

frustra  :  frvstrA,  CIL.  vi.  20370. 
frustum  :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
fungor ,  fungi,  functus  sum  :  DE- 
FtfNCTIS,  CIL.  V.  1326;  FtfNCTO, 
xii.  3176  et  passim, 
furtim  :  from  fur. 
furtivus  :  from  fur. 


fur  turn  •  from  fur. 

fiistis:  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 

G. 

geographia  :  Gr.  yeuy pacpLa. 

Georgius:  Gr.  Teupyios. 
georgicus :  Gr.  yeupyiKds. 
gfisco  :  §  49. 

glossarium  :  from  Gr.  yXGxraa. 
glossema  :  from  Gr.  yXcocrcrrjput. 
gryllus :  y  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
gryps  :  like  Gen.  grypis  ;  §  42.  2. 

H. 

hactenus  :  like  hac. 

Hellespontus  :  Gr.  'EWtio-itovtos. 
Herculanum :  HercvlAniae,  CIL. 
xii.  1357;  'HpKovXdveov,  Dio  Cas¬ 
sius,  lxvi.  23 ;  'HpicXavds,  CIA.  iii. 
1197. 

hibiscum:  i  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
Killae  :  hovcshira. 
hircus  :  like  hirtus. 
hirsutus :  like  hirtus. 

Hirtus  and  hirtus  :  i  acc.  to  the  Ro¬ 
mance. 

hisco  :  see  §  49. 

H ispellum  :  cf  Gr.  WktkPCXov,  Strabo, 
v.  227. 

Hispo,  Hispulla  :  like  Hispellum. 

hornus  :  from  hbra  ? 

horsum  :  for  *ho-vorsum. 

hydrops  :  like  Gen.  hydropis  ;  §  42.  2. 

Hymettus  :  Gr.  'T p-tjttos. 

Hypermestra  :  Gr.  'TireppaficrTpa. 

I. 

ignis  :  Ignis,  CIL.  xi.  826. 
ilignus :  see  §  38. 
i llorsum  :  for  *illo-vorsum. 

Illyria  :  Eillvrico,  CIL.  i2.  p.  77. 
impingo,  -ere,  impegi,  impadus :  see 
§  46.  3*  b). 


56 


Hidden  Quantity. 


infestus :  infesti,  CIL.  v.  2627 ;  cf. 

manifestus. 
inlustris :  from  lux. 

Iblcus :  Gr.  ’IwAkos. 
instinct  us  :  see  distinguo. 
intellego,  iniellegere,  intellexi,  intellec- 
tus :  like  lego, 
intervallum  :  from  vallus. 
introrsum :  for  *intro-vorsum. 
involiicrum :  u  in  Plautus,  Captivi , 
267;  §  36.  2. 

istorsum :  for  *isto-vorsum. 

J. 

jentaculum :  see  §  40.  2.  a ) . 
jentdtio:  see  §  40.  2.  a), 
juglans:  from  Jov-  and  glans. 
j ungo ,  -ere,  junxi,  junctus  ;  see  §  46. 

_  3*_^' 

jurgo  :  for  jurigo,  from  jus. 
Justinianus  :  from  justus. 
justitium :  from  jus. 
justus  :  from  jus :  also  IVSTO,  CIL.  ii. 
210;  v.  5919. 

jiixtd,  juxtim :  from  jugis  ‘joined 
with.’ 

L. 

labor,  labi,  lapsus  sum  :  see  §  46.  3 ; 

dIlapsam,  CIL.  xi.  3123. 
labrum ,  ‘  bowl  ’  :  for  lavabrum  ;  la- 
brum,  ‘  lip,’  has  a. 
labrusca  :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
laevorsum :  for  *laevo-vorsum. 
lamna  :  syncopated  for  lamina, 
lardum  :  syncopated  for  laridum. 
Lars,  Lartis  :  Lart-,  CIL.  x.  633. 
larva :  like  larua,  the  early  Latin 
form,  eg.  Plautus,  Amphitruo,  777; 
Captivi  598. 

latrina  :  for  lavatrina ;  cf.  Plautus, 
Curculio ,  580;  §  36.  2. 
latro:  a  in  oblatratricem,  Plautus,  Mi¬ 
les  Gloriosus,  681 ;  §  36.  2. 


lavabrum:  see  §  51.  I. 
lavacrum :  see  §  51.  1. 
lego,  -ere,  legi ,  lectus  :  see  §  46.  3. 
lemma  :  Gr.  \9jixfxo.. 
lemniscus  :  Gr.  \rnxvl<TKos. 

Lemnos  :  Gr.  Arj/u-vos. 
lentiscus :  i  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
libra:  i  in  Plautus,  Pseudolus,  816; 
§  36.  2. 

libro  :  like  libra. 

Victor :  lIctor,  CIL.  vi.  699  and  often; 
LICTOR,  Ephemeris  Epigraphica ,  v. 
51;  \dKTojp,  Eckinger  ( Orthogra¬ 
phic  lateinischer  Worter  in  Grie- 
chischen  Inschriften,  p.  43). 
lignum  :  see  §  38. 

lubricus :  Vi  in  Plautus,  Miles  Glor¬ 
iosus,  853;  §  36.  2. 
luceo,  -ere,  liixi  :  see  §  46.  3. 
lucta  :  ii  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
luctor  :  like  lucta. 

luctus :  from  lugeo :  also  l^ctvm,  CIL. 
vi.  1527  e.  66;  L^crv,  CIL.  v.  337; 
x.  4041.  2. 

liigeb,  lugere,  luxi :  see  §  46.  3. 
lustrum,  ‘  expiation  ’ :  lvstrvm,  Monu- 
mentum  Ancyranum ,  ii.  3,  5,  8; 
ii.  3,  6,  10;  lustrum,  ‘haunt,’  has  u. 
lustro  :  like  lustrum, 
luxuria :  see  luxus. 
luxus :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
Lycurgus:  Gr.  AvKovpyos. 

M. 

magnus  :  see  §  38. 

maVignus :  see  §  38  ;  so  also  the  Ro¬ 
mance. 

malle  :  for  *mah-  ( magis )  +  velle. 
manifestus :  [mani]festvm,  CIL.  i. 

p.  319;  very  uncertain. 

Manlius:  from  Manius;  MAnlio, 
Manlia,  CIL.  v.  615;  Manliae, 
ix.  3942. 


Word-List. 


5  7 


Marcellus,  Marcella:  from  Marcus; 

Marcella,  CIL.  xii.  3188. 

Marcius :  from  Marcus;  Marcivs, 
CIL.  v.  555  et  passim ;  M aapiaov, 
CIG.  1137. 

Marcus :  Maarco,  CIL.  i.  1006;  xiv. 
2802;  MArci,  Boissieu,  Inscriptions 
de  Lyon ,  p.  143;  M dapnos,  CIG.  887 
et  passim. 

Mars,  Martis :  MArtis,  Monumentum 
Ancyranum,  iv.  21 ;  CIL.  x.  809 
et  passim. 

Mdrtidlis  :  like  Mars, 
massa  :  Gr.  p afa. 
matrimonium  :  from  mater, 
matrix  :  from  mater, 
matrona :  from  mater ;  mAtronA, 
CIL.  v.  5249. 

maxilla  :  acc.  to  Priscian,  iii.  36. 
maximus :  mAx[imo,  CIL.  vi.  2080. 

J7- 

maza :  Gr.  p.afa. 

mercenndrius  :  for  * m erced- narius. 
Metrodorus:  Gr.  M rjrpodupos. 
metropolis  :  Gr.  prjTpoTroXis. 
mille,  millia  :  .MlLLIA,  Monumentum 
Ancyranum ,  i.  16  ;  mIlliens,  iii. 
34  ;  1  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
milvus  :  as  in  the  early  Latin  miluos. 
Mostelldria  :  from  monstrum, 
mucro :  u  in  Atta,  Frag.  13  (ed. 

Ribbeck)  ;  §  36.  2. 
mulleus :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
mullus  ;  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
muscerda  :  from  mus. 
muscidus  :  from  mus. 
muscus  :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
mustela  :  from  mus. 

Mycalessus :  Gr.  Mvi«x\r]crcr6s. 

N. 

nanciscor  :  see  §  49. 

Narnia:  Umbrian  Nahar-  (=  a). 


ndrro :  nArrem,  Boissieu,  Inscrip¬ 
tions  de  Lyon ,  p.  136. 
nascor:  §49;  nAscerer,  Monumen¬ 
tum  Ancyranum,  ii.  44  ;  nAscenti- 
bvs,  CIL.  xii.  3702. 
nasturcium  :  from  ndsus. 
nefdstus  :  from  nefas. 
neglego,  -ere,  neglexi,  neglectus ;  see 
lego. 

nequidquam  ( nequicquam )  :  from  abl. 
quid. 

nitor,  mti,  nixus  sum  :  see  §  46.  3. 
nolle  :  from  ne  +  *volle  (through  the 
assimilated  form  *no-volle  ?). 
nondum  :  from  non  and  dum ;  non- 
dvm,  CIL.  x.  4041.  6. 
nongenti :  for  *no(iI)  engenti. 
nonne  :  from  lion, 
lionnulti  :  from  non  and  nullus. 
Norba:  Gr.  Nc 
nosed  :  0  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
nubo,  -ere,  nupsi,  nupta  :  see  §  46.  3. 
nullus:  from  ne  and  ullus ;  nvllvm, 
CIL.  x.  4787. 

nundinae,  nundinum  :  for  *no(v)en- 
dinae ;  noundinae  in  early  Latin; 
Nvndinvs,  CIL.  xii.  3650. 
nuntius :  for  *nove-ntius  ?  (‘  news- 
bringer  ’). 

nuntib  :  like  nuntius. 
nuptiae  :  like  nupta. 

|  nusquam  :  like  usquam. 
nutrio  :  like  nutmx. 
nutrix  :  u  in  Plautus,  Curculio,  643  ; 
nutneatus,  Miles  Gloriosus,  656  ; 
nutricant,  Miles  Gloriosus,  715; 
§  36-  2. 

O. 

obhviscor  :  see  §  49  ;  oblIvIscemvr, 
CIL.  vi.  6250. 

Oenotria  :  Gr.  0 ivoirpla. 
olla  :  for  aula  ;  OLI.A,  CIL.  vi.  10006 
et  passim . 


58 


Hidden  Quantity. 


Onchestus  :  Gr.  MOyxva’T°s- 
Opus,  -untis  :  Gr.  * Ottovvtos . 
drea  :  o  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
ordior :  like  or  do. 

or  do  :  ordinis,  Boissieu,  Inscriptions 
de  Lyon,  p.  136;  CIL.  ix.  5177; 
xii.  3312  ;  0  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
drno :  ornare,  CIL.  xii.  4333  et 
passim. 

0 momentum :  ornAmentis,  CIL.  xii. 

3203  et  passim  ;  cf  orno. 
oscen  :  from  os. 
oscillum  :  from  osculum. 
bscito  :  from  os. 
osculor  :  from  os. 

Ostia:  from  os;  Gr.  ’f larla . 
ostium  :  from  os  ;  coona,  scholion  to 
Aristophanes,  Plutus ,  330  ;  OSTIVM, 
CIL.  vi.  4710;  ostio,  Monumen- 
tum  Ancyranum ,  v.  14. 
ovillus  :  from  ovinus. 

Oxus  :  Gr. in  Strabo. 

pacts  cor,  pacts  ci,  pactir  sum :  see 

§  49- 

Paeftgnus :  see  §  38  ;  Gr.  ncuXiVoi  in 
Appian,  B.C.  i.  39. 
palimpsestus  :  Gr.  -jraXl/xpriaTos. 
paluster  :  from  palus. 
pango,  pangere,  pepigt ,  pdetus :  the 
compounds  impdetus ,  compactus, 
point  to  a  ;  see  §  46.  4.  c). 
paradtgma  :  Gr.  Trapd^ecyixa. 
pdsco,  pascere ,  pcivt,  pastus  :  see  §  49. 
pdstillus  :  like  pdsco. 
pdstio  :  like  pdistus. 
pastor:  like  pastus  ;  PAASTORES,  CIL. 

i.  551  ;  pAstoris,  CIL.  x.  827. 
pdxillus  :  acc.  to  Priscian,  iii.  36. 
pegttta  :  Gr.  Trrjyna. 
pentdthlum  :  Gr.  ad\ou. 
peremptdlis  :  from  peremptus  ( emo ). 


pergo,  pergere,  perrexi,  perrectus  :  like 

rego. 

pemclitor  :  like  pertculum. 
perimo,  -ere,  peretnt ,  peremptus  :  like 
emo. 

Permessus  :  Gr.  Hep/x^oaos. 
perrepto  :  from  repto  (grepo) . 

Pesstnus ,  -untis  :  Gr.  Yleoaivoovros. 

Phoentssa  :  like  Phoenix. 

pictor  :  like  pictus  {ping'd). 

pictura  :  like  pictus. 

pigmentum :  pIgment-,  CIL.  viii. 

1344  ;  i  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
pigntis  :  see  §  38. 

pingo,  pingere,  ptnxt, pictus  :  see  under 
fingo,  which  is  precisely  parallel. 
pistillum ,  pistor,  pisius  (from  pinso), 
pistnnum,  pistrilla  :  pIstvs,  CIL. 
v.  6998.  The  Romance  evidence  is 
conflicting,  but  is  favorable  to  1. 
plebiscitum  :  =  plebi  scitum,  and  better 
so  written. 

plebs :  like  genitive  ptebis ;  PLkps,  CIL. 

v.  6797;  xii.  4333. 
plectrum  :  Gr.  7 rXrjKTpov. 

Plisthenes  :  Gr.  Yl\euxdtvr)s. 
plbslellum  :  from  plaustrum. 
plusculum  :  from  plus. 

poetria,  -is  :  Gr.  iroLTjTpia,  irorqTpls. 
Polla  :  —  Paulla ;  PoLLA,  CIL.  xii. 

3471;  cf.  the  following  word. 

Pollib :  from  Paullus ;  Pollio,  CIL. 

vi.  22840  et  passim ;  IIwAXfwi'  in 
Plutarch,  Dio  Cassius,  and  else¬ 
where. 

polluceb,  -ere,  -uxi  :  §  46.  3. 
Polymestor  :  Gr.  Ylo\vp.r) oriop. 
porrigo,  -ere,  porrexi ,  por rectus  :  like 
rego. 

praelustris :  like  lux. 
prdgmaticus  :  Gr.  irpayp.a.Tu<:6s. 
Praxiteles  :  Gr.  IIpd^tr^XTjs  (7rpa£ts). 
prendo :  for  pre-hendo. 


Word-List. 


59 


primordium  :  from  ordior. 
princeps  :  from  primus  and  capio. 
principalis :  from  princeps. 
principdtus :  from  princeps. 
pnncipium  :  from  princeps. 
Priscianus :  from  pmscus. 
priscus  and  Pmscus :  Priscvs,  CIL. 
xi.  1940;  PrIscvs,  CIL.  ix.  4354.  c; 
UpeiaKos,  CIG.  4494  et passim, 
pristinus :  like  priscus. 
pmvignus  :  see  §  38. 
procrastinb  :  from  eras. 

Procrustes  :  Gr.  IIpoKpobcrTTjs. 
profestus  :  from  festus. 
promo,  -ere,  prompsi,  promptus :  see 
_§  46.  3- 

propugnaculum  :  pugno. 
prbrsum,  prorsus :  for  *pro-vorsum, 
-sus. 

prosperus :  from  pro  *spere  ?  (‘  accord¬ 
ing  to  expectation’). 
prostibulum  :  from  pro  and  stabulum. 
Publicius,  Publicola :  from  publicus. 
Poplicola  is  another  word,  viz.  from 
poplus ,  early  form  of  populus, 
‘  people.’ 

publicus:  from  pubes;  pvblicor[vm, 
CIL.  vi.  1377;  u  in  Plautus,  Miles 
Gloriosus,  102,  103  ;  Captivi,  334  et 
passim ;  §  36.  2  ;  u  also  acc.  to  the 
Romance. 

Publilius  :  like  Publius. 

Publius  ;  like  publicus. 
pugna  :  see  §  38. 
pugnax  :  like  pugna. 
pugno  :  like  pugna. 
pugnus :  see  §  38. 

pulvillus  :  from  pulvinus ;  pvlvIllvs, 
CIL.  i.  Fasti  Cap.,  a.  297. 
pungo,  -ere, pupugi,piinctus :  u  acc.  to 
the  Romance. 

purgo :  for  *purigo  ( purus ) ;  u  also 
acc.  to  the  Romance. 


purgdmentum  :  from  purgo. 
purgatio :  from  purgo. 
pustula  :  from  pus ;  uz.ee.  to  the  Ro¬ 
mance. 

Q. 

quartus :  QuArtvs,  CIL.  iii.  4959 ; 
Monumentum  Ancyranum,  iii.  22 
et  passim. 

quartanus  :  like  quartus. 
quartarius  :  like  quartus. 
quiesco  :  acc.  to  Gellius,  Nodes  Atticae, 
vii.  15,  some  persons  pronounced 
quiesco  in  his  day;  but  other  -seb 
formations  have  invariably  e  before 
sc;  quievi  and  quietus  also  point  to 
quiesco  ;  QVIESCERE  is  found  CIL. 
vi.  25531. 

Qumtilis  :  from  quintus. 

Quintilius :  from  quintus;  QvIncti- 
lio,  CIL.  iii.  384. 

quincunx  :  from  quinque  and  uncia. 
quindecim  :  from  quinque  and  decern ; 

1  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
quingenti,  qumgeni,  quingenties  :  from 
quinque. 

Quinquatrus :  from  quinque ;  a  in 
Plautus,  Miles  Gloriosus,  691  ; 

§  36-  2. 

quinque :  QvlNQVE,  CIL.  vi.  3539  et 
passim  ;  1  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
qmnquaginta  :  from  quinque. 
quinquennium  :  from  quinque. 
quinquies  :  from  quinque. 
quintus,  Quintus,  Quinctius :  from 
quinque;  QvIntvm,  Monumentum 
Ancyranum,  iii.  i;  i  longa  occurs 
repeatedly;  Koeivros,  CIG.  2003; 
i  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
quintana  :  from  quintus. 
quippe  :  for  quid  (Abl.)  and  -pe. 
quorsus :  for  *quo-vorsus. 


6o 


Hidden  Quantity. 


R. 

rastrum :  from  rddo. 

redpse  :  for  re  edpse  (Abl.of  ipsa). 

recte,  rector  :  like  rectus. 

rectus  :  see  rego. 

redigo,  -ere,  redegi,  redactus  :  like  ago. 
redivio ,  -ere,  redemi,  redemptus  :  like 
emb  ;  'PedijvTTTa,  CIG.  9811  ;  RE- 
DEMPTA,  CIL.  vi.  22251. 
redemptio,  redemptor  :  from  redimo. 
regnum  :  see  §  38. 
regno  :  like  regnum. 
regndtor,  regnatnx  :  from  regno, 
rego, -ere,  rexi,  rectus  :  see  §  46.  3.  b). 
relinquo,  -ere,  reliqui,  relidus :  see 
§  46.  3-  $). 

reminiscor,  -1 :  see  §  49. 
repo,  rep  ere,  repsi,  rep  turn  :  see  §  46.  3. 
restingub,  -ere,  restinxi,  restindus  :  see 
distinguo. 

rixa  :  i  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
roscidus  :  from  ros. 

Roscius:  Roscio,  CIL.  vi.  2060,  5; 
'PdbcKios,  Plutarch,  Cicero,  3  ;  5  ; 
Pompey,  15. 

rostrum:  from  rodo ;  pQarpov,  He- 
sychius. 

Rostra  :  from  rostrum. 

Roxana  :  Gr.  'Pio^dvrj. 
ructo :  acc.  to  the  Romance  (Grober, 
Archiv,  v.  p.  370). 
ructus :  like  rudo. 
rursus  :  for  *re-vorsus. 
rusticus :  from  rus ;  Rvsticvs,  CIL. 
ix.  4012  ;  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 

S. 

saftgnus,  sahgneus  :  see  §  38. 
sancio,  sancire,  sanxi,  sandus :  see 
§  46.  3-  ^)- 

Sdrsina  :  SAssinas  in  an  inscription. 
sceptrutn  :  Gr.  crrijirTpop . 


s cisco :  see  §  49;  d[esc]Iscentem, 
Monumentum  Ancyranum,  v.  28. 
scribb,  -ere,  scrtpsi,  scriptus  :  see  §  46. 
3;  scrIptvm,  CIL.  vi.  2011;  con- 
SCREIPTVM,  CIL.  i.  206.  87;  IO9; 
conscriptis,  CIL.  x.  3903 ;  i  acc. 
to  the  Romance  ;  Umbrian  screihtor 
—  scriptos  (Nom.  Plu.). 
segmen  :  like  segmenium. 
segmentum  :  see  §  39. 
segnis  :  segnis  in  a  Herculanean  papy¬ 
rus. 

seligb,  seligere,  selegi,  setedus :  like 
legd 

Selinus,  -untis  :  Gr.  SeAt^ouvros. 
semestris  :  for  *ses-mestris,  *sexmestris; 
see  §  89. 

semuncia  :  from  semi-  and  uncia. 
septunx  :  from  uncia. 
sescuncia  :  for  sesqui-  and  uncia. 
sescuplex ,  sescuplus :  for  sesqui-  and 
-plex. 

Sesostris :  ’Ltauarpis. 
sesqui-  :  =  semisque-. 
sestertius  :  for  semis  tertius. 

Ses/ius :  Gr.  Z-rjcrTios,  in  Cic.  ad  Att. 
vii.  17.  2  et  passim ;  h-rjaTLa,  CIA. 
iii.  1450. 

Sestos,  Sestii  :  Gr.  ’Erjaros,  hr/aTioi. 
Signia  :  Seig[nia,  CIL.  i.  11. 
signum :  seignvm,  CIL.  xiv.  4270; 
sIgna,  Boissieu,  Inscriptions  de 
Lyon,  p.  606  ;  cf.  §  3 8  fin. 
significb,  signo  :  like  signum. 
sinistrorsus :  for  * sinistro-vorsus. 
sistrum  :  Gr.  aeiaTpov. 
sobrius  :  b  in  Plautus,  Miles  Gloriosus, 
812;  §  36.  2. 

Socrates  :  Gr.  'ZwKparr] s. 
solstitium :  from  sol. 

Sbphron  :  Gr.  "S,unppoju. 
sospes :  Gr.  2wcr7ris,  CIA.  iii.  1161  et 
passim. 


Word-List. 


6 1 


sospita,  sbspito  :  like  sospes. 

sldgno  :  like  stagnum. 

stagnum  :  see  §  38. 

stilla  :  i  acc.  to  the  Romance. 

sfillicidium ,  stillo  :  like  stilla. 

struo,  -ere,  struxi ,  struclus  :  see  §  46. 

3.  b) ;  u  also  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
structor  :  like  structus  ;  cf.  strVctor, 
CIL.  x.  708  ;  u  acc.  to  Gellius,  xii. 

3-  4- 

structura  :  like  structus. 

sublustris :  like  lux. 

substructio  :  like  structus. 

suesco  :  as  in  suevi,  suetus. 

sugo,  -ere,  suxi,  suetus :  see  §  46.  3  ; 

u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
suillus  :  from  suinus. 
sumo,  -ere,  sumpsi,  sumptus  :  see  §  46. 

3  ;  u  also  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
sumptus  :  from  sumo, 
sur cuius  :  from  surus. 
surg'd,  -ere,  surrexi,  surrectus :  like 
rego. 

sursum  :  for  *su-vorsum. 
sutnna  :  like  sutor. 

Sutrium  :  u  in  Plautus,  Casina  524; 
§  36.  2. 

syllepsis :  Gr.  avWrjpis. 

T. 

tango,  -ere,  tetigi,  tiictus:  see  §  46.  3.  II). 
tactib  :  like  tdetus. 

Tartessus  :  Gr.  Tapr^crcros. 
tdxillus  :  acc.  to  Priscian,  iii.  36. 
Tecmessa  :  Gr.  Tti</j.r)crcra. 
tectum  :  from  tego. 

tego,  -ere,  text,  tectus  :  see  §  46.  3.  b) . 
Telmessus  :  Gr.  TeX/xr/crcros. 

Ternnos  :  Gr.  T rjfxvos. 

Termessus :  Gr.  Tep/iycrcros. 
teruncius  :  from  uncia. 
thedtrum  :  Gr.  dtarpov. 
lignum  :  see  §  38. 


Tillius :  tIllIvs,  CIL.  vi.  2043. 
tingo, -ere,  tinxi,  tinctus  :  see  §  46.  3.  b). 
tractim  :  like  trdetus. 
trdeto :  like  trdetus. 
traho,  -ere,  traxi,  trdetus  :  see  §  46. 
3-  b)._ 

Trapezus,  -untis :  Gr.  Tpawe^ovs, 

-OVVTOS. 

triformis  :  from  forma, 
tristis :  trIstior,  CIG.  6268 ;  i  also 
acc.  to  the  Romance. 
tructa  :  u  acc.  to  the  Romance. 

U. 

ullus :  from  unus ;  vlla,  CIL.  ii. 

1473  ;  vlli,  CIL.  vi.  10230. 
ulna  :  Gr.  wXbvrj. 
ulva  :  like  uligo. 
uncia  :  like  unus. 
unctio  :  like  unctus  (ungo). 
undecim,  undecimus :  from  unus  and 
decern. 

undeviginti,  etc.  :  like  unus. 

ungo ,  -ere,  unxi,  unctus :  see  §  46. 

_  _3' 

uro,  -ere,  ussi,  ustus :  u  in  the  Perfect 
Participle  acc.  to  the  Romance  ;  for 
the  u  in  ussi,  see  §  53  s.  v. 
uspiam  :  like  usque, 
usquam  :  like  usque, 
usque  :  ti  acc.  to  the  Romance. 
ustrina :  like  ustus. 
usurpo  :  usu  rapid  ? 

V. 

vallum,  vdllus :  vAllAri,  CIL.  ii. 
4509  ;  also  VAllivs,  VAllia,  CIL. 
xiv.  4039. 

vdlldris  :  see  vallum, 
valid :  see  vallum, 
vdsculum  :  like  vds. 
vastus:  the  Teutonic  languages  point 
to  a  long  root  vowel. 


62 


Hidden  Quantity . 


Vectis,  ‘  Isle  of  Wight  ’ :  Gr.  OvtjktLs. 
vegrandis  :  from  ve-  and  grandis. 
Veldbrum :  a  in  Plautus,  Curculio, 
483  ;  §  36.  2. 

vendo  :  from  venum  and  do. 
vernus  :  from  ver. 

vestibulum :  ve-  -f  stabulum  ?  Cf  prb- 
stibulum. 

vestigium  :  ve  +  steigh-  ? 
vexillum :  vexillo,  CIL.  xii.  3167; 
Byzantine  Gr.  p7]%i\\a;  CIG.  4483, 
oui7^tXXari((3)criy  ;  also  acc.  to  Pris- 
cian,  iii.  36. 
victus  :  from  vivo. 

villa  :  vIlla,  CIL.  vi.  9834  ;  the  Ro¬ 
mance  points  to  i. 
vindemia  :  from  vmum  and  denib. 
Vipsanius :  vIpsanI,  CIL.  vi.  12782; 
vIpsania,  CIL.  vi.  8877  ;  Beipanos, 
CIG.  5709. 


Vipstdnus :  vIpstanvs,  CIL.  vi.  2039 
and  frequently  ;  OveipTavov,  CIG. 
5837,  b.  ;  CIA.  iii.  621.  - 

vise  us :  vIsceris,  CIL.  vi.  1975. 
vivo,  ere ,  vixi,  victum  :  see  §  46.  3  ; 
VEIXIT,  CIL.  xiv.  2485;  VlXIT, 
CIL.  ii.  3449 ;  vIctCro,  CIL.  vi. 
12,562;  j 8ei£iT  in  an  inscript’ion 
cited  by  Eckinger  ( Orthographic 
Lat.  W  or  ter  in  Griech.  Inschrif- 
ten,  p.  43). 
victus  :  like  vivo. 

Vopiscus :  Gr.  OvoireicrKOS  ;  VOPlsco, 
CIL.  x.  4872. 

X. 

Xenophon,  -ontis:  Gr.  -uvtos. 

Z. 

zoster  :  Gr.  faoTrip. 


53.  Words  whose  Hidden  Quantities  are  sometimes  Marked 
at  Variance  with  the  Preceding  List. 


agnatus ,  agnotus,  etc. :  a  Marx ;  see 
§  38-  _ 

agnus :  a  acc.  to  all  the  authorities; 
but  see  §  38. 

allicio :  some  scholars  mark  the  e  of 
the  Perfect  long  in  allexi,  illexi, 
pellexi ;  and  likewise  in  -spexi 
{aspexi,  conspexi ,  etc .),  flexi,  pexi, 
vexi.  This  marking  rests  upon  a 
statement  of  Priscian  in  ix.  28.  But 
Priscian  in  this  passage  simply  says 
that  Perfects  in  -xi  have  a  long 
vowel  before  the  x  only  when  the 
vowel  is  e  ;  he  does  not  state  that 
every  e  is  long  before  -xi.  More¬ 
over,  little  weight  is  to  be  attached 
to  this  testimony ;  for  in  the  para¬ 
graph  immediately  preceding  (ix. 


27)  Priscian  lends  the  weight  cf 
his  authority  to  such  forms  as  traxi, 
mansi,  duxi,  which  certainly  had 
a  long  vowel  in  the  best  period. 
Osthoff  (  Geschichte  des  Perfects,  p. 
227)  and  Brugmann  ( Grundriss 
der  Vergleichenden  Grammatik ,  ii. 
p.  1182)  support  e  in  Perfects  of 
this  type  by  arguments  drawn  from 
comparative  grammar  ;  but  the  evi¬ 
dence  does  not  warrant  a  positive 
conclusion  in  their  favor. 

amygdalum  :  y  Marx,  without  citation 
of  evidence.  Grober  (Archiv,  i.  240) 
and  Korting  (  Worterbuch,  col.  45) 
give  y. 

Appulus,  Appulia  :  A  Marx.  Apulus, 
Apulia  are  the  better  spelling. 


Disputed  Words. 


63 


area:  a  Marx  and  Lewis  (E. L.D.). 
The  word  occurs  with  the  apex 
(ARCAE)  in  Boissieu,  Inscriptions 
de  Lyon ,  p.  279,  but  it  is  doubtful 
whether  this  single  instance  justi¬ 
fies  our  recognizing  the  a  as  long. 
The  root  arc-,  *  hold,  confine,’  had 
originally  a  short  vowel,  as  is  shown 
by  coerced  (for  *co-arceo') ;  *drced 
would  have  retained  the  a  in  com¬ 
position  ;  see  §  72.  Nevertheless 
it  is  undeniable  that  a  tendency  ex¬ 
isted  in  certain  localities  to  lengthen 
the  short  vowel  before  r  +  a  con¬ 
sonant.  In  some  words  this  re¬ 
sulted  in  permanent  lengthening  of 
short  vowels  in  the  classical  speech, 
e.g.  in  forma,  quartus  (cf  quat- 
tuor ) ;  orca,  and  probably  in  dr  do, 
ordior ,  dr  no.  In  case  of  other 
words  we  simply  meet  isolated 
local  manifestations  of  the  ten¬ 
dency,  e.g.  in  ArvAli,  CIL.  vi.  913; 
lib£rtis,  CIL.  X.  3523;  SERVILIO, 
Henzen,  6490 ;  vIrgo,  CIL.  vi. 
2150;  vIrtvtis,  CIL.  vi.  449; 
CORV1NVS,  vi.  2041;  ORFITO,  vi. 

353;  Cordiae,  vi.  22,915;  NAr- 
bone,  xii.  3203;  NArbonensis,  xii. 
3163;  HORT[oS,  vi.  9493  ;  COHORT- 
[is,  vi.  2993 ;  F6rt[is  Fortvnae, 
vi.  9493  ;  FORTVNATA,  vi.  7527.  Yet 
these  sporadic  inscriptional  mark¬ 
ings  hardly  justify  our  assuming 
arvum ,  drvdlis,  liber t us,  servus, 
Virgo,  etc.,  for  the  classical  speech  ; 
and  the  same  applies  to  area.  See 
Seelmann,  Aussprache  des  Latein, 

P-91* 

Arruns  :  A  Marx. 

arundo :  u  Lewis  (E.L.  D.),  appar¬ 
ently  on  the  basis  of  a  statement 
by  an  anonymous  sixth  century 


grammarian  (Keil,  viii.  ill.  14); 
but  the  Romance  points  to  u. 
Grdber,  Archiv,  i.  243 ;  Korting, 
Worterbuch,  col.  71. 
arvum,  arvdlis :  see  area, 
ascendo,  ascribo,  etc. :  a  Marx;  see  §  48. 
ascia  :  a  Marx  ;  see  §  89. 

Asclepiades  :  A  Marx. 

Asculum  :  A  Marx. 
aspernor,  asporto,  etc . a  Marx ;  see  §  48. 
aspicio,  ere,  exi,  ectus :  ext  Lewis ;  see 
above  under  allicio. 
assus  :  a  Marx,  as  if  for  *arsus,  which 
is  improbable.  See  Osthoff,  Ge- 
schichte  des  Perfects,  p.  545. 
astus :  a  Marx,  as  if  for  *axtus;  see 

§  89. 

attredo :  e  Marx,  who  explains  at- 
trecto  as  for  attrdetd  (from  tractus') ; 
but  a  never  becomes  e  in  Latin; 
on  the  other  hand  the  vocalism  of 
attrecto  points  necessarily  to  a  pre¬ 
vious  *at-tracto  (see  §  46.  4.  cf 
Unless,  therefore,  we  reject  the 
evidence  in  favor  of  tractus  as  the 
regular  form  of  the  participle  of 
traho  and  its  compounds  (see  §  46. 
3.  b),  we  shall  have  to  assume  the 
existence  of  an  original  ‘  by-form  ’ 
tractus,  to  which  we  shall  refer 
attreetd,  contrectd,  obtrecto,  etc.  Simi¬ 
lar  doublets  existed  in  case  of  dic- 
tus  :  dictus  (§  52.  s.  v.);  fructus  : 
fructus  (§  52.  s.  v.),  and  possibly 
latus :  *ldtus  (whence  Latium,  ‘  the 
broad  country  ’). 

axis :  a  Marx,  without  warrant ;  Cha- 
risius  (Keil,  i.  11.  22)  and  Diome- 
des  (Keil,  i.  428)  both  testify  to  a. 
braccae  :  a  Marx  ;  see  §  88.  I. 
bes,  bessis  :  e  in  oblique  cases  Marx  ; 
but  in  view  of  Quintilian’s  state¬ 
ment  (i.  7.  20)  that  ss  was  not 


64 


Hidden  Quantity. 


written  after  a  long  vowel  in  the 
post-Ciceronian  period,  it  is  much 
more  probable  that  the  word  fol¬ 
lowed  the  analogy  of  as,  assis. 
Osthoff,  Geschichte  des  Perfects ,  p. 

545- 

caballus :  a  Marx,  as  if  a  diminutive 
from  an  assumed  *cabdnus,  for 
which  there  is  no  warrant. 

Camillus :  i  acc.  to  Appendix  Probi 
(Keil,  iv.  p.  197)  ;  i  acc.  to  Mar- 
tianus  Capella  (p.  66.  4,  ed.  Eys- 
senhardt). 

capesso :  e  acc.  to  Osthoff  ( Geschichte 
des  Perfects ,  p.  221),  who  regards 
capesso ,  facesso,  lacesso,  as  origi¬ 
nally  aorists  of  the  same  type  as 
habesso,  licessit,  etc.  Brugmann 
( Grundriss ,  ii.  p.  1203),  taking  a 
different  view  of  the  formation,  re¬ 
gards  the  e  as  short. 
carduus :  possibly  a,  if  from  the  same 
root  as  car-ex ,  ‘  sedge  ’  (lit.  ‘  rough 
plant’  ?). 

carrus ,  carruca  :  a  Marx. 

Cassandra  :  Cass-  Marx. 
cedo,  -ere,  cessi,  cessurus :  e  Marx ; 
cessi  acc.  to  Priscian,  ix.  27  ;  the 
Romance  languages  point  to  e  in 
both  cessi,  and  cessurus  (d’Ovidio, 
in  Grober's  Grundriss,  i.  p.  510 ; 
Osthoff,  Geschichte  des  Perfects,  p. 
537).  Korting,  IVorterbuch ,  col. 
186,  strangely  gives  e. 
cesso  :  e  Marx;  see  cedo. 
cingo,  -ere,  ctnxi,  cmctus  :  Marx  and 
Lewis  (E.L.D.)  regard  the  i  as 
short  in  cinxi,  cmctus ;  likewise 
in  - stinxi ,  -stinctus  ;  tinxi ,  tinctus 
(except  that  Lewis  has  tinctus ) ; 
and  in  pinxi,  finxi.  The  Romance 
languages  seem  to  point  to  i  in  the 
Perfect  and  Perfect  Participle  of  all 


these  words,  eg.  Italian  cinsi,  cinto  ; 
stinsi,  stinto  ;  finsi,  finto,  etc.  In¬ 
scriptions,  moreover,  give  extInc- 
tos,  cInctvs.  See  d’Ovidio  in 
Grober's  Grtmdriss,  i.  p.  501  f.  ; 
Korting,  IVorterbuch,  and  Frohde 
in  Bezzenberger's  Beitrage,  xvi. 
P-  J93: 

classis :  a  Marx,  on  the  basis  of  an 
assumed  etymological  connection 
with  cldrus. 

cognatus,  cognomen,  cognosc'd,  and  other 
words  beginning  with  cogn-:  the  0 
here  is  usually  regarded  as  long; 
but  the  evidence  is  not  sufficient  to 
warrant  this  view  ;  see  §  38. 
confestim  :  e  Marx,  after  the  analogy 
of  manifestus,  which  latter  is  some¬ 
what  uncertain. 

conjungd,  conjunx  :  0  Marx,  on  the 
basis  of  CONIVGI,  CIL.  v.  1066 ; 
vi.  9914,  which  are  too  improbable 
to  merit  acceptance. 
cdnspicio,  -ere,  exi,  ectus  :  exi  Lewis  ; 

see  above  under  allicio. 
contrecto :  e  Marx  ;  see  attrecto. 
damma  :  a  Marx;  see  §  88.  1. 
despicio,  -ere,  ext,  ectus :  -exi  Lewis 
(E.L.D.)  ;  see  under  allicio. 
detrecto  :  e  Marx;  see  attrecto. 
discidium,  discribo,  disto,  distinguo, 
distringo :  dis-  Marx  and  Lewis 
(E.L.D.)  ;  see  §  48. 
disco:  1  Marx,  on  the  theory  of  com¬ 
pensatory  lengthening  ( disco  for 
*dt-dc-sco)  ;  see  §  89. 
distinguo,  -ere,  inxt,  inctus  :  see  cingo. 
duumvir :  u  Marx  and  Lewis 

(E.L.D.)  ;  see  §  42.  1. 
Dyrrhachium  :  y  Marx,  who  cites  the 
modern  name  Durazzo. 
enormis :  0  Marx  and  Lewis  (E.L.D.) ; 
see  norma. 


Disputed  Words. 


65 


Erinnys ;  1  Marx;  cf.  §  88.  1. 

exstinguo,  -ere,  inxi,  inctus :  see  dis- 
tinguo. 

facesso  :  e  Lewis  (E.L.D.)  ;  see 
capes  so. 

fastigium :  a  Marx,  on  the  theory 
of  compensatory  lengthening;  see 

§  89. 

fastus,  ‘  disdain  ’ :  a  Marx,  on  the 
theory  of  compensatory  lengthen¬ 
ing  ;  §  89. 

festinus,  festino  :  e  Marx,  on  the  the¬ 
ory  of  compensatory  lengthening, 
as  though  for  fendt- ;  see  §  89. 

festuca,  fistuca  :  e  and  1  Marx,  on  the 
theory  of  compensatory  lengthen¬ 
ing  (see  §  89),  as  though  for  ferst-. 

Jingo ,  -ere,  finxi,  f inctus  :  see  cingo. 

fistula :  1  Lewis  (E.L.D.) ,  but  the 
Romance  shows  i  ;  Grober  ( Ar - 
chiv,  ii.  288)  ;  Korting  (  Worter- 
buch,  col.  328). 

fiectb,-ere,fiexi:  fiexi  Lewis  (E.L.D.); 
see  under  allicio. 

fluctus :  d’Ovidio  in  Grober'' s  Grund- 
riss,  i.  p.  515,  and  Korting,  Wor- 
terbuch,  col.  334,  regard  the  u  as 
long  on  the  basis  of  the  Romance  ; 
but  it  is  admitted  that  the  evidence 
is  not  altogether  clear.  If  Italian 
fiotto  is  the  descendant  of  Latin 
fiuctus,  this  points  to  u. 

fiuo,  -ere,  fiuxi,  fiuxus  :  fiuxi,  Lewis 
(E.L.D.);  fiuxi,  fiuxus,  Korting 
(  Wor  ter  buck,  col.  334);  fiuxus , 
d’Ovidio  (Grober' s  Grundriss,  i.  p. 
515);  but  the  evidence  is  ex¬ 
tremely  scanty  and  conflicting. 

fons,  fontis :  0  in  the  oblique  cases, 
Lewis  (E.L.D.),  see  §  41. 

fors,  forsit,  for  si  tan,  forte ,  fortasse, 
fortassis,  fortuna,  fortuitus :  0 

Lewis,  apparently  on  the  basis  of 


the  apex  in  CIL.  vi.  9493 ;  7527. 
But  the  second  of  these  occurs  in 
an  inscription  which  has  HORTis. 
See  under  area.  Marx  writes  for- 
sit  and  forsitan  on  the  basis  of  the 
Romance.  This  may  be  correct  for 
these  two  words  ;  but  it  is  difficult 
to  believe  that  the  other  words  of 
this  group  have  0.  Greek  trans¬ 
literations  show  cpopriv,  QopTis. 
fortasse,  fortassis  :  a  Marx,  who  cites 
nothing  in  support. 
frendo,  -ere,  frendtii,  fresus,  or  fres- 
sus  :  -essus  Marx  ;  §  98.  2. 
frons,  frondis  :  0  in  the  oblique  cases, 
Lewis  ;  see  §  41. 

frons,  frontis  :  0  in  the  oblique  cases, 
Lewis;  see  §  41. 
futtilis :  u  Marx  ;  see  §  88.  1. 
Garumna  :  u  Marx. 
garrio,  garrulus :  a  Marx,  who  con¬ 
nects  with  Gr.  yapbeo. 
gigno  :  i  by  most  authorities  ;  see  §  38. 
gluttio ,  gluttus  :  u  Marx  ;  see  §  88.  1. 
grallae  :  a  Marx. 
hallucinor :  a  Marx;  see  §  88.  1. 
helluo :  e  Marx  ;  see  §  88.  1. 
hesternus :  lies-  Lewis,  on  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Marius  Victorinus  (Keil, 
vi.  15.  15).  Historical  grammar 
shows  that  the  e  was  originally 
short.  Cf.  heri,  Gr.  etc. 

Hence,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
isolated  statement  of  a  fourth  cen¬ 
tury  grammarian  should  receive 
credit  as  an  index  of  the  classical 
pronunciation. 

hircus :  the  quantity  of  the  i  is  doubt¬ 
ful,  as  the  Romance  words  upon 
which  judgment  is  based  may  be 
‘  semi-literary  ’ ;  see  §  36.  5  fin. 
Cf  Grober  ( Archiv ,  iii.  139)  ; 
Korting  (  Worterbuch ,  col.  389). 


66 


Hidden  Quantity. 


hirundo :  u  Lewis,  on  the  basis  of  an 
anonymous  sixth  century  gramma¬ 
rian  (Keil,  viii.  ill.  14).  But  the 
Romance  points  unanimously  to 
u;  see  Grober  ( Archiv ,  iii.  139)  ; 
Korting  (  Worterbuch ,  col.  389). 
hispidus :  1  Marx  and  Lewis.  Marx 
cites  the  Romance,  but  the  word 
is  probably  ‘literary’  in  the  Ro¬ 
mance  ;  see  §  36.  5  fin.  Neither 
Grober  nor  Korting  include  it  in 
their  collections. 

ico,  icere,  id,  ictus  :  ictus  Marx  ;  but 
ico  seems  to  have  been  the  normal 
present ;  while  ico  occurs  only  in 
rare  cases  of  metrical  lengthening. 
Hence,  in  the  absence  of  specific 
evidence,  ictus  is  more  probable 
than  ictus. 

imrrio  :  immo  Marx,  in  view  of  imus  ; 

but  cf.  §  88.  1. 
incesso  :  e  Marx  ;  see  ced'd, 
inspicio,  -ere,  exi,  ectus  :  -exi  Lewis  ; 
see  allicio. 

intercessib  :  e  Marx  ;  see  cedo. 
jubeo ,  -ere,  jussi,  jussus  :  jus  si,  jussus 
Marx ;  jussi,  jussus  Lewis.  The 
only  authority  for  u  in  jussus  is 
iCssvs,  CIL.  vi.  77.  But  the  apex 
here  is  entitled  to  no  weight.  The 
same  inscription  has  at  least  one 
other  error  in  the  use  of  the  apex, 
viz.  Annivs.  In  favor  of  jussi  we 
find  ivss[it,  CIL.  xii.  1930  ;  ivssit, 
iv.  25531  ;  and  IOVSIT,  CIL.  i.  547 
a,  et  passim  in  inscriptions  of 
the  ante-classical  period.  The  sim¬ 
plest  solution  of  the  difficulties  is 
to  recognize  an  ante-classical  juft, 
which  is  well  attested  by  Quintilian 
in  i.  7.  21,  and  a  classical  jussi. 
The  shortening  occurs  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  principle  explained 


in  §  88.  1.  In  view  of  Quintilian’s 
additional  statement  that  jussi  was 
the  orthography  of  his  day,  and 
that  ss  was  not  written  after  a  long 
vowel  (i.  7.  20)  this  is  almost  a  nec¬ 
essary  conclusion.  The  apex  in  CIL. 
xii.  1930  is  then  a  blunder,  a  result 
of  the  confusion  of  just  and  jussi. 
See  Osthoff,  Geschichte  des  Perfects, 
p.  532  ff. ;  Brugmann,  Grundriss , 
ii.  1182;  Frohde,  Bezzenberger's 
Beitrdge,  xvi.  p.  184. 

Juppiter :  u  Marx;  see  §  88.  1. 
lacesso :  e  Lewis;  see  capesso. 
lascivus  :  a  Marx,  on  the  basis  of  an 
assumed  etymology,  which  con¬ 
nects  the  word  with  the  root  las- 
(larj  of  larua. 
libertus  :  e  Lewis  ;  see  area, 
ribertds  :  e  Lewis  ;  see  area, 
limpidus :  1  Marx,  on  the  basis  of  the 
Romance  Undo ;  so  Korting,  Wor- 
terbuch,  col.  454;  but  others  ques¬ 
tion  the  connection  of  Undo  with 
limpidus,  and  refer  the  former  word 
to  a  Germanic  origin. 
littera  :  i  Marx  ;  see  §  88.  1. 

Messalla :  a  Marx;  see  §  88.  1. 
mi  seed,  miscere,  miscui,  mix  t  us  : 
throughout  acc.  to  Marx  ;  mixtus 
Lewis.  The  Romance  shows  i 
throughout.  Grober,  Archiv,  iv. 
1 17;  Korting,  Worterbuch,  col. 
494  5  496. 

mitto,  miltere,  misi,  missus :  missus 
Lewis  (E.L.D.).  The  Romance 
points  to  f;  a  few  suspicious  in¬ 
stances  of  i  longa  occur,  eg.  DI- 
mIssis,  CIL.  iii.,  p.  862  (shown  by 
Osthoff,  Geschichte  des  Perfects,  p. 
526,  to  be  probably  a  blunder); 
mIssione,  x.  7890;  remIssa,  xi. 
I585- 


Disputed 

mons ,  montis :  o  in  oblique  cases, 
Lewis  ;  see  §  41. 

musca  :  u  Marx ;  u  acc.  to  the  Ro¬ 
mance. 

musso  :  u  Marx,  who  compares  miitid. 
mussito  :  u  Marx  ;  see  musso. 

Narbo,  Narbonensis :  a  Marx ;  see 
under  area. 

nescio,  nescius :  e  Lewis ;  but  com¬ 
pare  nequeo .  The  Romance  points 
to  e. 

norma  :  d  Marx,  who  connects  with 
Gr.  yvupifjLos. 

nusquam  :  u  Lewis ;  s eeusquam. 
obtrecto  :  e  Marx ;  see  attreetd. 
ostrum  :  d  Marx,  who  connects  with 
austrum. 

pannus  :  a  Marx;  cf.  §  88.  I. 
pellicio :  see  allicio. 
perspicid  :  see  aspicio. 
pcstis :  e  Marx,  in  accordance  with  a 
fanciful  etymology. 
pilleus  :  1  Marx;  see  §  88.  I. 
pingo  ;  see  cingo. 

pons, pontis  :  d  in  oblique  cases,  Lewis; 
see  §  41. 

posca  :  d  Marx,  who  compares  po-cu- 
lum ;  but  the  root  had  also  a  re¬ 
duced  form  po-  (§  69) ;  cf.  Gr. 

■KOTOV. 

posed :  d  Marx,  on  the  theory  of  com¬ 
pensatory  lengthening  ( posed  for 
*porsco )  ;  see  §  89. 

postulo :  d  Marx,  as  in  the  case  of 
posed. 

promiseuus :  1  Marx,  as  in  the  case  of 
misceo. 

propinquus :  1  Lewis ;  but  the  Pro¬ 
vencal,  which  apparently  is  the 
only  Romance  language  that  in¬ 
herited  the  word  from  Latin,  points 
to  i. 

pulmo :  u  Marx  and  Lewis.  Marx 


Words.  67 

compares  Gr.  irXevfjuiv,  which  proves 
nothing  for  Latin;  the  Romance 
points  to  u.  Cf.  Stolz,  Lat.  Gram., 
p.  283,  who  explains  pulmo  as  for 
*phnd ;  see  §  100.  I. 
quousque  :  Lewis  u\  see  usque, 
recessus  :  e  Marx ;  see  cedo. 
respicio, -ere,  exi,  ectus :  -exi  Lewis; 

see  allicio. 

Sallustius  :  a  Marx. 
secessus  :  e  Marx ;  see  cedo. 
sescenti :  ses-  Marx  and  Lewis,  on  the 
theory  of  compensatory  lengthen¬ 
ing;  see  §  89.  Marx  compares 
Sestius  (for  Sextius ),  but  e  in  that 
word  is  exceptional.  See  Frohde, 
Bezzenberger's  Beitrage,  xvi.  204. 
sinciput:  i  Marx  and  Lewis,  on  the 
basis  of  the  etymology  semi  +  caput, 
i.e.  sinciput  for  *senciput  by  vowel 
assimilation ;  §  90. 

stannum :  a  Marx,  on  the  basis  of 
the  ‘by-form,’  stdgnum. 

Stella :  stela  acc.  to  the  Romance ; 

probably  the  form  with  two  /’ s  had  e. 
strenna  :  e  Marx;  see  §  88.  1. 
supparum :  u  Marx;  cf.  §  88.  1. 
suspicio,  -ere,  exi,  ectus  :  u.  Marx ;  see 
§  48.  On  suspexi,  see  allicio. 
taxo  :  a  Marx. 

testa  :  <?Marx  and  Lewis,  on  the  theory 
of  compensatory  lengthening  ( testa 
for  *tersta) ;  see  §  89.  The  Ro¬ 
mance  points  to  e. 

testis,  testor,  testdmentum,  testimo¬ 
nium,  etc.  :  e  Marx,  on  the  theory 
of  compensatory  lengthening  ( testis 
for  *terstis )  ;  see  §  89. 
tmguo,  -ere,  tinxi,  tinctus  :  see  cingo. 
tor  red,  -ere,  tor  mil,  tostus  :  tostus  Marx, 
on  the  theory  of  compensatory 
lengthening  ( tostus  for  * torstus)  ; 
see  §  89.  The  Romance  points  to 


68 


Hidden  Quantity. 


o.  See  d’Ovidio  in  Grober' s  Grand- 
riss,  i.  p.  520 ;  Korting  (  Worter- 
buchy  col.  726);  Grober  ( Archiv , 
vi.  129). 

tressis  :  e  Marx ;  see  bes,  bessis. 

Tusci :  u  Marx  and  Lewis,  on  the 
theory  of  compensatory  length  en- 
ing  (  Tusci  for  *  Tursci );  see  §  89. 
The  Romance  points  to  u. 

Ttisculum :  u  Marx  and  Lewis;  see 
Tusci. 

ultra,  ulterior ,  ultimas,  etc.  :  u  Marx 
and  Lewis,  on  the  basis  of  an  al¬ 
leged  apex  in  vltra,  Boissieu,  In¬ 
scriptions  de  Lyon ,  p.  136.  But 
the  apex  does  not  occur  there.  See 
Lindsay,  Latin  Language ,  p.  595. 
The  Romance  points  to  u. 

urceus :  u  Marx,  who  cites  orca ;  but 
the  Romance  points  to  u. 

urna :  u  Marx  and  Lewis.  Marx 
compares  urindtor ;  but  urna  is 
to  be  referred  to  the  root  arc-, 
weak  form  urc-  (§  100.  2),  whence 
ur(c)na.  The  Italian  urna,  if  a 
genuine  Latin  inheritance,  would 
point  to  u ;  but  it  is  probably 
purely  literary ;  §  36.  5  fin. 

uro,  -ere,  ussi,  ustus  :  ussi  Marx  ;  but 
Priscian  (Keil  i.  466.  6)  gives  ussi. 
See  under  jubeo. 

viscum :  i  Marx  and  Lewis.  Marx 
cites  the  evidence  of  the  Romance ; 


but  Grober  ( Archiv ,  vi.  144),  Kor¬ 
ting  (  Worterbuch,  col.  766),  and 
d’Ovidio  ( Grober's  Grundriss,  i.  p. 
503),  interpret  the  Romance  as 
pointing  to  i. 

vectigal,  vectis,  vecto,  vector,  vectura , 
etc. :  e  Lewis.  The  only  evidence 
is  that  furnished  by  the  Romance 
in  the  case  of  vectis;  this  points 
to  e.  The  related  words  must  have 
had  the  same  quantity. 
vehb,  -ere,  vexi,  vectus :  vexi,  vectus 
Lewis.  For  vexi,  see  under  allicio  ; 
on  vectus,  see  vectigal. 

Venafrum  :  a  Marx,  and  the  lexicons; 

on  what  grounds  is  not  clear. 
vescus :  e  Marx,  on  the  basis  of  the 
questionable  etymology  ve  +  esc  a. 
vexo  :  e  Lewis  ;  see  vectigal. 
victor,  victus,  victoria,  etc.  :  1  Lewis, 
on  the  basis  of  repeated  inscrip- 
tional  markings,  such  as  vIctor, 
CIL.  vi.  10056;  10115;  1058; 

VlCTORINVS,  Vi.  IO58;  VlCTORIAM, 
vi.  2086;  1NVICTAI,  vi.  353.  But 
with  a  single  exception  no  one  of 
these  inscriptions  can  be  shown  to 
antedate  the  third  century  A.D.; 
and  I  quite  agree  with  Christiansen 
{de  Apicibus  et  I  longis,  p.  49)  in 
the  view  that  in  the  classical  period 
the  i  was  short;  later,  apparently 
it  was  lengthened. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ACCENT. 

See  Brugmann,  Grundriss,  i.  §§  679  ff. ;  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik ,2 
pp.  317  ff. ;  Lateinische  Lautlehre ,  pp.  95  ff.;  SEELMANN,  Aussprache  des 
Latein ,  pp.  15  ff.;  Lindsay,  Latin  Language ,  pp.  148  ff. 

54.  Accent  in  general  is  the  prominence  of  one  special  syllable 
of  a  word  as  compared  with  the  other  syllables  of  the  same  word. 
This  prominence  may  manifest  itself  in  three  different  ways.  Thus  : 

1 .  A  syllable  may  be  made  prominent  by  ‘  stressing  ’  it,  i.e.  by 
uttering  it  with  a  more  energetic  expulsory  act  on  the  part  of  the 
lungs  ( stress  accent).  The  English  and  German  accent  are  of 
this  nature. 

2.  A  syllable  may  be  made  prominent  by  uttering  it  at  a  higher 
pitch  than  the  other  syllables  of  the  same  word  ( musical  accent). 
The  Greek  and  Sanskrit  accent  were  of  this  kind. 

3.  A  syllable  may  be  quantitatively  prominent,  i.e.  its  time  may 
be  greater  than  that  of  the  other  syllables  of  the  same  word.  No 
language  was  ever  accented  essentially  on  the  quantitative  princi¬ 
ple  alone ;  but  traces  of  the  operation  of  this  principle  are  notice¬ 
able  at  one  stage  of  Latin  accentuation. 

Neither  stress  accent  nor  musical  accent  prevails  alone  in  any 
language.  As  a  rule  the  one  constitutes  the  essential  accentual 

principle  of  a  language,  while  the  other  is  subordinate.  Thus  in 

% 

English  we  notice  chiefly  the  stress  accent ;  but  the  rise  and  fall  of 
pitch  also  exists  as  a  feature  of  the  spoken  language. 

55.  1.  The  Latin  accent  was  essentially  a  stress  accent ;  so  far 
as  a  musical  accent  existed,  it  was  subordinate  to  the  other.  In 

69 


7  o 


Accent . 


the  prehistoric  period  the  Latin  accent  rested  upon  the  initial 

syllable  of  the  word.  In  this  respect  Latin  represents  a  deviation 

0 

from  the  accentuation  of  the  Indo-European  parent-speech.  In 
the  parent-speech  the  accent  was  free,  i.e.  it  might  rest  upon  any 
syllable  of  a  polysyllabic  word.  Evidences  of  the  prehistoric 
Latin  accent  {i.e.  the  stress  accent  on  the  initial  syllable)  are  seen 
in  the  weakening  of  unaccented  vowels  and  in  the  loss  of  unac¬ 
cented  syllables.  Thus : 

a)  Vowel- weakening  :  exerced  for  * ex-arced ;  conficio  for  *con- 
facio;  existumo  for  *  exaistumo ;  inimicus  for  *  in-amicus ;  c  on- 
tub  enialis  for  *  contabenialis ;  cecidi  for  *cecaidi  ( caedd )  ;  conclud'd 
for  * con-claudb ;  Manlius  for  Mdnilius. 

b)  Syllable-loss  :  reppuli  for  * re-pepuli ;  suipui  for  * sur-rapui ; 
un-decim  for  *uno-decem. 

2.  In  course  of  time  another  factor  seems  to  have  become 
operative  in  Latin  accentuation,  viz.  quantity.  Apparently  a  long 
penult  came  to  assume  such  prominence  as  to  receive  a  secondary 
stress.  Thus  peperci  became  peperci;  inimicus  became  inimicus ; 
existumdmus  became  existumamus.  Where  the  penult  was  short, 
the  preceding  syllable  seems  to  have  received  the  secondary 
accent,  as  existumo  for  existumo;  cbnficiunt  for  conficiunt.  Ulti¬ 
mately  this  secondary  accent  prevailed  over  the  primary  initial 
accent,  and  thus  established  the  traditional  accentuation  of  the 
historical  period,  the  so-called  ‘  Three  Syllable  Law,’  by  which  the 
accent  is  restricted  to  the  last  three  syllables  of  a  word,  resting 
upon  the  penult  if  that  is  long,  otherwise  upon  the  antepenult. 
Yet  the  first  syllable  of  Latin  words  seems  to  have  always  retained 
a  certain  degree  of  prominence ;  for  it  is  regularly  retained  in 
Romance,  while  unaccented  syllables  in  the  interior  of  a  word 
frequently  vanish. 

3.  It  is  extremely  improbable  that  Latin  in  the  historical  period 
was  as  strongly  stressed  as  English  and  German,  for  example. 
One  reason  for  this  is  found  in  the  accentuation  of  the  Romance 
languages.  These,  in  the  main,  retain  the  Latin  accent  in  its 


Changes  in  the  Latin  Accent. 


7 1 


original  position,  but  they  all  agree  in  showing  a  much  slighter 
degree  of  stress  on  the  accented  syllable  than  exists  in  English  or 
German.  More  weighty  is  the  evidence  of  Latin  poetry.  Here 
the  quantitative  principle  is  the  fundamental  basis  of  the  verse. 
A  decided  stress  accent  would  have  conflicted  with  this  to  the 
extent  of  obscuring  the  metrical  character  of  the  verse.  More¬ 
over,  we  often  find  Latin  words  containing  an  unbroken  succession 
of  long  syllables,  eg.  edicebatur.  A  strong  stress  accent  is  incon¬ 
sistent  with  such  conditions,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  strongly 
stressed  modern  languages.  Cf.  Eng.  inevitable  with  Latin  uie- 
vitabile.  While,  therefore,  stress  always  remained  the  essential 
characteristic  of  the  Latin  accentuation,  yet  the  stress  was  rela¬ 
tively  slight,  and  probably  slighter  in  the  historical  period  after 
the  establishment  of  the  ‘  Three  Syllable  Law,’  than  in  the  pre¬ 
historic  period  when  the  principle  of  initial  accentuation  pre¬ 
vailed.  It  seems  a  fair  conclusion  that  the  diminution  in  the 
intensity  of  the  stress  accent  was  due  to  the  encroachments  of 
the  quantitative  principle.  Thus  a  long  penult  is  seen  to  have 
developed  a  secondary  stress  which  ultimately  gained  complete 
ascendancy  and  became  the  primary  accent  of  the  word. 

4.  Attention  has  been  called  in  the  Grammar,  §  6,  4,  to  cases 

where,  by  the  loss  of  a  final  vowel,  the  accent  has  come  to  stand 

/ 

upon  the  last  syllable  of  certain  words.  Other  instances  of  the 
same  sort  are  disturbat  for  disturbavit ;  munit  for  munivit.  The 
principle  is  stated  by  Priscian  (xv.  17-18).  Arpln&s ,  Samms, 
nostras ,  Campdns ,  etc.,  are  also  cited  by  the  grammarians  as 
having  an  accent  upon  the  last  syllable,  as  though  for  Arpinatis , 
Sam nttis,  nostratis ,  Camp&nus ,  etc.  See,  for  example,  Priscian 
iv.  22.  Such  forms  as  benefdcit,  satisfacit,  are  properly  written 
bene  facit,  etc. 

5.  Various  Latin  grammarians  have  seemed  to  support  the 
theory  of  the  existence  of  a  musical  accent  in  Latin,  eg.  Nigidius 
Figulus  (in  Gellius,  Nodes  Atticae  xiii.  26.  1-3);  Audacis  Ex- 
cerpta  (Keil,  vii.  357.  14  ff.);  Priscian,  de  Accentu,  2.  5.  These 


72 


Accent. 


writers  recognize  an  acute  (')  and  a  circumflex  ('*),  and  lay 
down  specific  rules  for  their  employment.  According  to  them, 
the  acute  stood  upon  all  short  vowels  as  nux ,  bene ,  veterem ,  and 
upon  a  long  vowel  in  the  antepenult,  as  regibus .  It  also  stood 
upon  a  long  vowel  of  the  penult  in  case  the  ultima  was  long,  as 
reges.  If  the  ultima  was  short,  a  long  penult  took  the  circumflex, 
as  rege.  The  circumflex  also  stood  upon  long  vowels  of  monosyl¬ 
labic  words,  as  fids.  But  it  is  more  than  probable  that  these  rules 
are  merely  an  echo  of  the  principles  of  Greek  accentuation,  just 
as  the  rules  given  for  syllable-division  by  certain  Latin  gram¬ 
marians  were  probably  merely  a  learned  fiction  in  imitation  of  the 
Greek  rules.  See  §  35. 


CHAPTER  V. 

ORTHOGRAPHY. 

See  Brambach,  Die  Neugestaltung  der  Lateinischen  Orthographie,  Leipzig, 
1868,  and  the  same  author’s  Hiilfsbiichlein  fiir  Lateinische  Rechtschrei- 
bung,  3d  ed.,  Leipzig,  1884;  Georges,  Lexikon  der  Lateinischen  IVort- 
formen ,  Leipzig,  1890. 

56.  The  orthography  of  Latin  words  naturally  varied  at  different 
periods,  and  even  within  one  and  the  same  period  there  was  not 
unfrequently  considerable  discrepancy  between  different  writers. 
During  the  classical  era  relatively  slight  attention  was  paid  to 
the  study  of  the  language,  and  as  a  result  we  notice  the  absence 
of  any  recognized  standard  of  spelling  such  as  prevails  in  modern 
languages.  This  lack  of  a  recognized  norm  compels  us  to  resort 
to  other  sources  of  information  in  order  to  determine  the  best 
spelling  for  a  given  era.  Our  manuscripts  of  the  Latin  writers 
unfortunately  have  been  so  altered  in  the  course  of  transmission 
from  the  past,  that  they  seldom  furnish  trustworthy  evidence.  A 
few  of  the  oldest  give  valuable  indications  of  the  contemporary 
spelling ;  but  more  often  the  Mss.  have  been  adapted  to  the 
standards  of  a  later  age,  and  are  full  of  the  errors  and  inconsis¬ 
tencies  of  the  Decline.  On  the  whole,  carefully  cut  official  inscrip¬ 
tions  furnish  the  safest  reliance.  The  testimony  given  by  these  is 
supplemented  for  the  post-Augustan  era  by  the  statements  of 
grammarians,  who,  beginning  with  the  first  century  a.d.,  devoted 
much  systematic  attention  to  orthographic  questions.  Many 
points  belonging  here  have  already  been  anticipated  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  discussion  of  Pronunciation.  The  following  special 
classes  of  words  call  for  further  consideration  : 


73 


74 


Orthography. 


57.  i.  Words  of  the  type  mentioned  in  Gr.  §  9.  i ;  4,  viz. 
quom,  volt,  volnus,  voltus,  volgus ;  Nouns  and  Adjectives  in 
-quos,  -quom ;  -vos,  -vom ;  -uos,  -uom ;  and  Verbs  in  -quont, 
-quontur  ;  -vont,  -vontur  ;  -uont,  -uontur.  This  was  the  original 
spelling  and  continued  to  be  the  regular  orthography  down  to 
about  the  beginning  of  the  Augustan  Age.  After  that  it  was  still 
retained,  particularly  in  special  words  as  an  archaic  reminiscence. 
But  as  a  rule,  beginning  about  the  8th  century  of  the  city  (Brug- 
mann,  Grundriss ,  I.  §  431  ;  Stolz,  Lat.  Gr.  §  46;  Lindsay,  Latin 
Language ,  p.  299  ;  Bersu,  Die  Gutturalen ,  p.  53  ff.),  the  following 
changes  took  place  : 

a)  vol  -f-  a  mute  or  a  nasal  became  vul,  e.g.  vultus,  vulnus. 
But  proper  names  show  a  preference  for  the  early  form,  e.g. 
Vote  anus,  Volsci,  etc. 

b )  -vos,  -vom,  -vont,  -vontur  became  -vus,  -vum,  -vunt,  -vun- 
tur,  e.g.  saevus,  saevum,  solvunt,  solvuntur. 

c)  -uos,  -uom,  -uont,  -uontur  became  -uus,  -uum,  -uunt,  -uun- 
tur,  e.g.  p cipe tuns,  perpetuum ,  acuunt,  acuuntur. 

d)  -quos,  -quom,  -quont,  -quontur  developed  somewhat  at 
variance  with  the  foregoing  classes.  They  first  became  -cus, 
-cum,  -cunt,  -cuntur,  yielding,  e.g.,  ecus  (for  equos)  ;  cum  (for 
quom )  ;  relincunt  (for  relinquonf)  ;  secuntur  (for  sequontur) . 

2.  This  spelling  established  itself  during  the  Augustan  Age,  and 
continued  to  be  the  standard  orthography  in  words  of  this  class 
until  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  first  century  a.d.,1  when  -cus, 
-cum,  -cunt,  -cuntur  became  -quus,  -quum,  -quunt,  -quuntur.  This 
change  was  the  result  of  analogy.  Thus  in  a  word  like  ecus,  for 
example,  the  preponderance  of  forms  containing  qti  (equi,  equo, 
equis,  etc.)  in  time  naturally  produced  the  change  from  ecus  to 

1  Examples  are  anticvm,  CIL.  vi.  615.  4  b)\  cocvs,  CIL.  vi.  8753  f.; 
9264  f. ;  Propincvs,  CIL.  vi.  2408.  3 ;  iii.  5274  a.  2.  Cf.  Gr.  Upoirl^Kos, 
CIG.  6430.  Manuscripts  also  preserve  numerous  traces  of  such  spellings. 
For  examples  occurring  in  the  Palatine  codex  of  Vergil’s  Aeneid,  see  Bersu, 
p.  88,  N. 


Words  in  -quos,  -quoin  ;  - quont ,  - quontur ,  etc.  75 

equus  ;  and  from  to  equum.  Similarly,  in  the  verb  such  forms 
as  relincunt ,  secuntur  ultimately  became  relinquunt ,  sequuntur , 
owing  to  the  influence  of  the  forms  containing  qu ,  relinquis ,  relin- 
quit,  relinquimus  ;  sequitur ,  sequimur ,  etc. 

3.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  conjunction  cum  remained 
unaffected  by  this  tendency.  Not  forming  part  of  a  paradigm 
containing  yz/-forms,  it  remained  intact.  The  form  quurn , 
though  occasionally  found  still  in  texts,  does  not  appear  in  Latin 
inscriptions  or  Mss.  prior  to  the  6th  century  a.d.  (Bersu,  Die 
Gutturalen ,  p.  44,  n.)  . 

4.  What  has  been  said  of  forms  in  original  -quont,  -quontur, 
applies  similarly  to  forms  in  original  -(n)guont,  -(n)guontur. 
Thus  an  exstinguont  became  first  exstingunt,  then  later  (after 
analogy  of  the  other  forms  of  the  same  tense)  exstinguunt ;  so 
exstinguontur  developed  through  the  medium  of  exstinguntur  to 
exstinguuniur. 

58.  Assimilation  of  the  Final  Consonant  of  Prepositions 

in  Compounds. 

a)  In  compounds  of  ad  the  preposition  appears, — 

1)  Before  c,  as  ac-,  eg.  accipio. 

2)  Before  f,  as  ad-  or  af-,  eg.  adfero  or  affero. 

3)  Before  g,  as  ad-  or  ag-,  as  adgredior  or  aggredior. 

4)  Before  1,  as  ad-  or  al-,  as  adlatus  or  allatus. 

5 )  Before  n,  as  ad-  or  an-,  as  adnitor  or  annitor. 

6)  Before  p,  as  ad-  or  ap-,  as  adporto  or  apporto. 

7)  Before  r,  as  ad-  or  ar-,  -eg.  adndeo  or  arrided. 

8)  Before  s,  as  ad-  or  as-,  eg.  adsero  or  assero. 

9)  Before  t,  as  at-,  eg.  attineo. 

10)  Before  q,  as  ad-  or  ac-,  eg.  adquiro  or  acquir'd. 

Note.  — Yet  in  all  the  above  instances,  even  when  ad-  is  written,  it  is 
probable  that  af-,  ag-,  al-,  an-,  etc.,  were  regularly  spoken,  i.e.  the  matter 
was  a  purely  graphical  one.  A  sense  for  the  etymology  and  a  desire  to  indi- 


j6  Orthography. 

cate  the  actual  component  elements  of  the  word  prompted  a  spelling  which, 
strictly  speaking,  was  inexact. 

n)  Before  gn,  sp,  sc,  st,  we  find  sometimes  a-,  sometimes 
ad-,  e.g.  agnbsco ,  adgnbsco  ;  aspiro ,  adsplro .  Here 
again  the  spelling  adgn -,  adsp-,  etc.,  is  purely  etymo¬ 
logical,  and  does  not  indicate  the  actual  utterance ; 
the  d  disappeared  in  these  consonant  groups  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  principle  explained  in  §  105.  1. 

12)  In  all  other  cases  ad  was  retained  both  in  spelling  and 
pronunciation. 

b)  In  compounds  of  com-,  the  preposition  appears  — 

1 )  Before  b,  p,  m  as  com-,  e.g.  combibo,  comporto ,  commoror. 

2)  Before  c,  q,  g;  d,  t,  n;  f ,  s ;  j,  v,  as  con-,  e.g.  concilio , 

conquiro ,  congero ;  condo ,  contero,  connbto ;  conferb, 
conserb ;  conjungo,  convinco. 

3)  Before  1,  as  con-  or  col-,  e.g.  conlatus  or  collatus. 

4)  Before  r,  as  con-  or  cor-,  e.g.  conruo  or  corrnb. 

Note.  — Before  1  and  r,  even  though  con-  was  written,  col-  and  cor-  were 
probably  spoken.  See  note  on  ad  above. 

5)  Before  gn  con-  dropped  its  n  (see  §  105.  1),  e.g.  cognbscb. 

6)  The  origin  of  co-  in  conitor,  cbniveb ,  cbnubium,  etc.,  and 

of  co-  in  coactus,  co-addb,  etc.,  is  uncertain.  Some 
regard  co-  as  a  different  word  here. 

c)  The  Preposition  ex  (=  ecs)  before  f  lost  the  c  (§  105.  1) 
and  then  assimilated  s  to  f,  e.g.  effero,  for  e(c)s/ero  (cf.  differo 
for  *disfero) .  Another  form  sometimes  arises  by  the  loss  of  the 
s,  e.g.  ecfero,  ecfdtus,  etc.  This  orthography  is  found  mainly  in 
the  archaic  period. 

d)  The  Preposition  in  appears,  — 

1)  Before  1  as  in-  or  il-,  e.g.  inlatus  or  Hiatus. 

2)  Before  r  as  in-  or  ir-,  e.g.  inrumpb  or  irrumpo. 


Orthography  of  Prepositional  Compounds .  77 

3)  Before  m,  p,  and  b  as  in-  or  im-,  e.g.  imbibo  or  inbibo ; 

importo  or  inporto  ;  immortalis  or  inmortalis. 

Note.  —  Yet  in  all  these  cases  even  when  n  was  written,  it  is  probable 
that  assimilation  occurred  in  the  actual  speech.  See  above,  under  ad,  note. 

4)  In  all  other  cases  in-  was  both  written  and  pronounced. 
e)  The  Preposition  ob 

1)  Is  regularly  assimilated  to  oc-,  of-,  og-,  op-  before  c,  f,  g, 

and  p  respectively,  eg.  occurro ,  offendo ,  oggerd,  opponb. 

2)  Elsewhere  the  b  is  regularly  retained  in  writing  and  in 

pronunciation,  except  that  before  s  and  t,  b  had  the 
sound  of  p.  See  §  27.  Our  Mss.  of  Plautus,  Terence, 
and  Lucretius  often  have  op-  in  this  situation ;  but 
Quintilian  (i.  7.  7)  assures  us  that  for  his  time  good 
usage  demanded  ob. 

/)  The  Preposition  per  sometimes  appears  as  pel  before  1,  eg. 
pellicio.  Elsewhere  r  is  retained ;  p~ejero  does  not  contain  the 
preposition  per. 

g)  The  Preposition  sub 

1)  Is  regularly  changed  to  sue-,  suf-,  sug-,  sup-  before  c,  f, 

g,  and  p  respectively,  eg.  succurro ,  suffectus ,  suggestus, 
supplex. 

2)  Before  m  appears  as  sub-  or  sum-. 

Note.  —  Yet  subm-  was  probably  merely  the  etymological  spelling  for 
summ-.  See  note,  under  ad,  above. 

h)  The  Preposition  trans 

1)  Is  regularly  retained  before  vowels  and  b,  c,  f,  g,  p,  r,  t,  v, 
e.g.  transeo ,  transferor  transporto,  transversus. 

2)  Becomes  tran-,  often  before  s,  and  always  before  sc-,  eg. 
tran-sero,  tran-scribo. 

3)  Becomes  tra-  before  j,  d,  1,  m,  n  (§  105.  2),  e.g.  traicio, 

traducb ,  trano.  Yet  before  these  sounds  trans-  is 
often  restored  by  re-composition  (§  87.  3). 


73 


Orthography. 


59.  Seelmann  ( Aussprache  des  Latein ,  p.  61  f.)  thinks  that 
such  spellings  as  adr-,  ads-,  ini-,  inr-  in  the  prepositional  com¬ 
pounds  above  considered,  indicated  the  actual  pronunciation. 
This  pronunciation,  however,  he  considers  to  have  been  a  faulty 
one,  emanating  from  half-educated  persons  striving  for  special 
correctness.  Terentius  Scaurus,  Priscian,  and  Appendix  Probi  all 
expressly  declare  the  etymological  spelling  to  be  incorrect  in  the 
type  of  words  under  discussion. 

On  the  whole,  there  seems  very  little  to  commend  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  the  etymological  spelling.  If  we  take  it  as  intended  to 
indicate  pronunciation,  we  can  hardly  reject  the  express  state¬ 
ments  of  the  grammarians  that  such  pronunciation  was  wrong. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  regard  the  etymological  spelling  as 
purely  graphical,  there  seems  no  advantage  in  writing  adl,  adg, 
inr,  ini,  etc.,  where  all,  agg,  irr,  ill  were  actually  spoken,  espe¬ 
cially  since  the  Romans  themselves  often  indicated  the  assimila¬ 
tion.  For  the  purposes  of  elementary  instruction  in  particular, 
the  assimilated  forms  are  decidedly  to  be  preferred  as  a  uniform 
spelling. 

60.  Compounds  of  jacio.  As  indicated  in  Gr.  §  9.  3,  these 
are  better  written  inicio,  adicio,  etc.  That  a  j  was  pronounced 
after  the  preposition,  is  made  probable  by  the  fact  that  the  first 
syllable  of  these  words  is  used  as  long  in  verse.  Possibly  the 
analogy  of  eicid,  d'eicio ,  reicio  (where  a  j  would  naturally  be  pro¬ 
nounced,  even  if  not  written)  led  to  the  omission  of  j  in  other 
compounds  also. 


Words  of  Doubtful  or  Varied  Spelling. 


79 


61.  List  of  the  Most  Important  Words  of  Doubtful  or 

Varied  Spelling.1 


abicid  :  better  than  abjicib ;  §  60. 
ad  in  composition  :  §  58. 
adicio  :  better  than  adjicio  ;  §  60. 
adollsclns  :  see  adullsclns. 

Adria  :  see  Hadria. 
adulescens :  Brambach  (. Neugestal - 

tung,  p.  52)  restricts  this  spelling 
to  the  noun,  ‘young  man,’  and 
for  the  participle  of  adollsco  writes 
adolescens. 

adullscentia,  adulescentulus  :  like  adu¬ 
lescens. 

Aedui :  preferable  to  Haedui ,  acc.  to 
Brambach  ( Hulfsbiichlein ,  p.  22). 
alneus ,  alnus :  better  than  ahlneus, 
ahlnus. 

agnbsco  and  adgnbsco  :  §  58,  a ). 
Alexandria  :  this  is  the  correct  form 
for  the  Ciceronian  period.  Later 
Alexandria  is  found. 
alioqui  and  alioquin. 
allium  and  dlium  :  §  88.  1 . 
allec  :  not  alec. 

ancora  :  not  anchor  a:  §  31.  3. 
antemna  :  also  antenna. 

Antiochla,  Antiochla:  like  Alexan¬ 
dria,  Alexandria, 
anulus  :  not  annulus. 

Apenninus  and  Appenninus . 

Aputlius  and  Appullius  :  cf.  §  88.  1. 
Apulia ,  Apulus. 

arbor  :  arbos  is  archaic  and  poetic. 
arcesso  :  in  early  Latin  also  accerso. 
Arlopdgita  and  Ariopagita. 


Arlus  pdgus  and  Arius  pdgus. 
artus ,  artare  :  not  arctus,  arctdre. 
arundo :  not  harundo. 
auctor  :  not  autor. 
auctoritas :  not  autoritds. 
aurichalcum  :  better  than  brichalcum. 
autumnus :  not  auctumnus. 

B. 

baca  :  not  bacca. 
balbutio  :  not  balbuttio. 
ballista  and  balista. 
balneum,  balneae  :  balineum  occurs  in 
early  Latin. 
bllua  :  not  bellua. 

beneficium :  preferable  to  benificium. 
beneficus  :  preferable  to  benificus. 
benevolentia :  preferable  to  benivo- 
lentia. 

benevolus :  preferable  to  benivolus. 
bibliothlca  :  bybliothlca  also  occurs. 
bipartilus  and  bipertitus  :  §  87.  1. 
Bosphorus :  §  31.  3  fin. 
bracchium  :  also  brachium. 
Britannia,  etc.  :  better  than  Britt-. 
Brundisium  :  not  Brundusium. 

C. 

caecus :  not  coecus  ;  §  1 1 . 
caelebs  :  not  coelebs ;  §  1 1 . 
caelum  and  derivatives  have  ae,  not 
coel- ;  §  II. 

caementum  :  not  clmentum  ;  §  10.  2. 
caenum  :  not  coenum  ;  §11. 


1  The  standard  followed  in  this  list  is  the  usage  of  the  early  Empire, 
—  roughly  speaking,  the  first  century  A.D.  The  correct  form  is  given  first. 
Words  belonging  to  the  classes  treated  in  §§  57_^°  are>  ^or  most  ParC 
omitted  from  the  list. 


8o 


Orthogra phy. 


caerimdnia  and  caeremonia  :  not  ceri- 
vionia ;  §  io.  2. 
caespes  :  not  cespes ;  §  10.  2. 
caestus :  not  cestus ;  §  10.  2. 
caetra  :  not  cetra ;  §  10.  2. 

C amena  :  not  Camoena ;  §11. 
causa :  caussa  was  the  pre-Augustan 
form  ;  §  98.  2. 
cena  :  not  coena  ;  §  1 1 . 

Cerealis  and  Cerialis  ;  Cerialia. 
ceteri :  not  caeteri  ;  §  10.  2. 

Cethegus  :  Cetegus  is  pre-Ciceronian  ; 
§  31.  3- 

circumeo  and  circueo. 
claudo :  cludo  is  rare  and  the  result 
of  ‘  De-composition  ’  ;  see  §  87.  2. 
clipeus :  better  than  clupeus,  the  early 
spelling  ;  §  6.  2. 

Clytemestra  :  not  Clytemnesira. 
coclea  and  cochlea  ;  §  31.  3. 
com-  in  composition:  §  58,  3). 
comissari  and  cdmisan. 
comminus :  not  cominus. 
comprehend'd  :  better  than  comprendd. 
con-  in  compounds:  §  58,  3). 
condicio  ( con  and  root  die-)  :  not  con¬ 
ditio. 

cdnecto  and  derivatives :  not  connectd, 
etc. 

conicio :  better  than  conjicio ;  §  60. 

A  form  coicio  also  occurs. 
ednitor  :  not  conmtor. 
cdniveo  :  not  connived, 
conjunx  :  better  than  conjux. 
edntio  (for  coventio)  :  not  condo  ; 
§_25-  3- 

conubium  :  not  connubium. 
convicium  :  not  convitium  ;  §  25.  3. 
cottidie  and  cotidie  :  not  quotidie. 
cothurnus  and  coturnus :  §  31.  3. 
culleus,  culleum  :  not  culeus ,  culeurn  ; 
§  88.  1. 

cum  :  never  quum  ;  see  §  57.  3. 


cumba  :  also  cymba. 
cupressus  :  not  cypressus. 
cur :  quor  is  ante-classical. 

D. 

damma  :  not  dama  ;  §  88.  1. 
Ddnuvius :  not  Ddnubius .  Cf.§  16.  2. 
Dareus :  better  than  the  later  form 
Darius. 

Decetia :  better  than  the  later  form 

Decelia. 

defatigo,  defafigdtid  :  also  defet- ;  see 
§  87.  1. 

deicio  :  better  than  dejicio ;  see  §  60. 
delectus,  1  choosing  ’  ;  also  dilectus. 
delenio  :  better  than  delinio  ;  cf.  §  90. 
deprehendo  :  also  the  contracted  form 
deprendo. 

derigo :  also  dirigo,  which  is  probably 
the  original  form.  Brambach,  how¬ 
ever,  recognizes  two  independent 
verbs :  derigo,  ‘  to  move  in  a  particu¬ 
lar  direction/  and  dirigo,  *  to  move 
in  different  directions.’ 
detreetd  :  also  detracto ;  §  87.  I. 
dexter,  dextera,  dexterum  :  also  dextra, 
dextrum ;  but  regularly  dextera 
when  used  as  a  substantive. 
dicio  :  not  ditio;  §  25.  3. 
dindsco  ;  earlier  digndsed. 
disicio  ;  better  than  disjicio  ;  §  60. 
Duilius  or  Duillius. 
dumtaxat :  not  d ant  ax  at ;  §  87.  1. 
dipondius :  earlier  dupondius  ;  §  6.  2. 

E. 

e cuius  :  cf.  §  57.  d) . 
eicio  :  better  than  ejicid  ;  §  60. 
elleborus  :  better  than  helleborus. 
empties,  emptio,  emptor :  not  emtus,  etc. 
epistula  :  better  than  epistola. 

Ennys  :  not  Erinnys. 

erus,  era,  erilis  :  not  herns,  etc. ;  §  23. 


Words  of  Doubtful  or  Varied  Spelling. 


8 1 


Esquiliae,  Esquilmus :  not  Exquiliae, 
etc. 

Euander  :  not  Evander. 
exedwa  and  ex  he  dr  a. 
existimatib ,  exisiimo  :  existumatio,  ext - 
stumb  are  the  early  spelling ;  §  6.  2. 
exsanguis,  exscindo,  exscribo ,  exsilium, 
exspecto ,  and  other  compounds  of  ex 
with  words  having  initial  s :  better 
than  exanguis,  excindo ,  expecto ,  etc. 

F. 

faenerdtor ,  faenero  :  not  feneraior, 
etc. ;  §  10.  2. 

faenum  :  not  fenum ,  nor  foenum  ; 

§  II. 

faenus  :  see  faenerdtor. 
fecundus ,  et.c. :  not  foecundus ,  etc.,  §  1 1 . 
femina  :  not  foemina  ;  §  11. 
fetidus,  etc.  :  not  foetidus,  etc.,  §11. 
fetus:  not  foetus  ;  §  1 1 . 
finitimus  :  earlier  -umus  ;  §  6.  2. 
forensia  and  foresia  :  §  20.  2. 
futtilis  :  better  than  futilis  ;  §88.  1. 

G. 

gaesum  :  not  gesum  ;  §  10.  2. 
garrulus  :  not  garulus. 

Geneva  :  ace.  to  Grober  in  Wolfflin’s 
Archiv,  ii.  437. 
genetivus  :  not  genitivus. 
genetidx :  not  genitrix. 
glaeba  and  gleba. 

gndrus  :  also  ndrus  in  Cicero’s  time. 
gndttis,  gndta  :  this  is  the  early  form, 
used  also  in  poetry  ;  later  ndtus, 
ndta. 

gratis  and  grains.  The  latter  form  is 
archaic. 

H. 

Hadria,  etc.  :  not  Adria,  etc.  ;  §  23. 
Halicarndsus. 


hallucinor  and  hdlucinor ;  cf  §  88.  I; 

also  at-,  all- ;  §  23. 

Hamnion  :  better  than  Amnion  ;  §  23. 
harena  :  better  than  arena  ;  §  23. 
hariola ;  also  ariola  ;  §  23. 
haruspex  :  better  than  aruspex  ;  §  23. 
haud :  sometimes  haut ;  §  28. 
haveo  and  aveo ;  §  23. 
hedera  :  better  than  edera  ;  §  23. 
hellub,  helludtib  :  better  than  helub,  etc. 
Henna  :  better  than  Enna  ;  §  23. 
Heraclea  :  later  Heraclia. 
her ct sco  and  er cisco  :  §  23. 
heri  :  also  here  (a  different  formation). 
Hiber,  Hiberes,  etc. :  not  Iber,  etc. : 
§  23. 

hiems  :  not  hiemps. 

H 1  lo tae  :  not  Helotae. 

Hister  :  better  than  Ister ;  §  23. 
holitor,  holitorium  :  see  holus. 
holus  :  better  than  olus ;  §  23. 

I. 

itnb-  in  compounds:  §  58.  d)  3). 
imm-  in  compounds:  §  58.  d')  3). 
irmnb  :  not  imb. 

imp-  in  compounds:  §  58.  d)  3). 
inclitus  and  inclutus  :  not  inclytus. 
incoho  and  inchoo. 
ingrafts  and  ingratiis. 
inicio :  better  than  injicio ;  §  60. 
ini-  in  compounds:  §  58.  d)  1). 
in  primis ,  mprimis ,  imprimis  :  §  58. 
d)  3)- 

inr-  in  compounds:  §  58.  d)  2). 
intellegentia,  intellego  :  see  §  87.  1. 
intimus  :  earlier  intumus ;  §  6.  2. 

J- 

jucundus :  not  jbeundus. 
fudaea  :  not  Judea  ;  §  10.  2. 
juniperus  :  not  j dnipirus.  . 

Juppiter :  better  than  Jupiter ;  §  88.  1. 


8  2 


Orthography. 


K. 

Kaeso  and  Caeso. 

Kalendae  :  better  than  Calendae. 
kalumnia :  in  legal  expressions  for 
calumnia. 

Karthago  and  Carthago. 

L. 

lacrima :  earlier  lacruma  (archaic 
dacruma) ;  §  6.  2 ;  not  lachrima 
nor  lachryma  ;  §  31.  3. 
lagoena  :  not  lagena  ;  §11. 
lamina  and  lammina ,  also  syncopated 
lamna. 

lanterna  :  better  than  laterna. 
Ldrentia  (in  Acca  LI)  :  not  Laurentia. 
lautus  :  better  than  lotus, 
legitimus  :  earlier  legitumus  ;  §  6.  2. 
libet ,  libens,  libido  :  earlier  lubet ,  etc.  ; 
§  6.  2. 

Its :  but  sifts  in  the  legal  phrase  stli- 
tibus  judicandis ;  §  104.  i.b). 
litter  a  :  better  than  l  iter  a  ;  §  88.  1. 
litus :  rather  than  littus. 
loquela  :  not  loquella. 

M. 

maereo ,  maestus ,  etc. ;  not  moereb,  etc. ; 

§  ii- 

Mdja:  §  15.  3. 

malevolentia  :  better  than  malivolentia . 
malevolus  :  better  than  malivolus. 
mancipium :  earlier  mancupium ; 
§  6.  2. 

rnanifestus :  earlier  man ufestus ;  §  6.2. 
manipretium  :  earlier  maniipretium  ; 
§  6.  2. 

maritimus :  earlier  maritumus  ;  §  6.  2. 
Mauretania  :  also  Mauritania, 
mdximus :  earlier  maxumus ;  §  6.  2, 
Megalensia  and  Megalesia  ;  ’  §  20.  2. 
mercennarius  :  not  mercenarius. 
Messalla  :  better  than  Messdla  :  §  88.  1. 


mille :  plural  millia  and  milia. 
minimus  :  earlier  minumus  ;  §  6.  2. 
monumentum  and  monimentum ;  §  6.2. 
muccus :  earlier  mucus ;  §  88.  1. 
multa :  not  mulcta. 
multo :  see  multa. 
muraena:  not  murena;  §  10.  2. 
murra  and  myrrha. 

N. 

navus  :  earlier  gnavus. 
ne ,  ‘  verily  ’ :  not  nae  ;  §  10.  2. 
neglego ,  neglegentia  :  §  87.  1. 
negotium ,  negotiator  :  not  negocium, 
etc.  ;  §  25.  3. 

nenia  :  not  naenia  ;  §  10.  2. 
nequicquam  and  nequiquam. 
novicius  :  not  novitius ;  §  25.  3. 
nunquam  and  numquam. 
nuntio ,  nuntius :  not  nuncio ,  etc.  ; 
§  25-  3- 

O. 

obicio  :  better  than  objicio  ;  §  60. 
oboedib  :  not  obedio  ;  §11. 
obscenus :  better  than  obscaenus ;  not 
obscoenus ;  §  10.  2;  11. 
obs-  in  compounds :  not  ops- ;  §  58. 
0  2). 

obsonium  :  also  opsonium  (pp&viov). 
obsondre  :  see  obsonium. 
obstipescb  :  earlier  obstupesco  ;  §  6.  2. 
obtemperb,  obtineo,  obtuli  :  not  opt- ; 

%  58-  0  2). 

opilio  :  better  than  upilio. 
opp-  in  compounds;  §  58.  e)  1). 
optimus  :  earlier  optumus ;  §  6.  2. 
Orcus  :  not  Or  chits ;  §  31.  3. 

P. 

paelex :  not  pellex  ;  §  10.  2. 

Paefigni  :  not  Peligni  ;  §  10.  2. 
paenitet :  not  poenitet ;  §11. 
paenula  :  not  penula  ;  §  10.  2. 


83 


Words  of  Doubtful 

Parnasus :  not  Parnassus, 
parricida ,  etc.  :  earlier  paririda ; 
§  88.  i. 

Paullus  and  Paulus. 
paulus  :  preferable  to  paullus. 
pedetentim  and  pedetemptim. 
pedisequus  :  not  pedissequus. 
pejero  :  not  pejuro  ;  perjuro  is  a  dif¬ 
ferent  word. 

percontor ,  etc. :  better  than percunctor, 
etc. 

perjurus  and  pejurus. 

pessimus  :  earlier  pessumus  ;  §  6.  2. 

pilleus,  etc.  :  not  pileus,etc. ;  §  88.  i. 

plaustrum  :  not  plostrum. 

plebs  :  not  pleps  ;  §  58.  e )  2). 

Pollib :  better  than  Polio, 
pomerium  :  not  pbmoerium. 
Pomptmus  :  not  Pontmus. 
pontifex  :  earlier  pontufex  ;  §  6.  2. 
Por senna  and  Porsena  ;  also  Porsinna 
and  Porsina. 
prehendo  and  prendo. 
prelum  :  not  praelum  ;  §  10.  2. 
proelium  :  not  praelium  ;  §  1 1 . 
prbicio  :  better  than  projicib  ;  §  60. 
prbmunturium :  better  thanpromontu- 
rium . 

proscaenium  :  not  proscenium  ;  §  10.  2. 
proximus  :  earlier  proxumus  ;  §  6.  2. 
Publicola  :  on  the  early  forms  Popli- 
cola,  Puplicola ,  see  publicus. 
publicus  (from  pubes)  :  poplicus  (early 
Latin)  is  from  poplus  —  populus ; 
puplicus  is  the  result  of  the  con¬ 
tamination  of  publicus  and  poplicus. 
pulcher  :  early  Latin  pidcer ;  §  31.  3. 

Q. 

quamquam  and  quanquam. 
quattuor  :  better  than  quatuor. 
querela  :  better  than  querella. 
quicumque :  better  than  quicunque. 


or  Varied  Spelling. 

quicquam  and  quidquam. 
quicquid  and  quidquid. 

Quinclus,  Quinctius,  Qiancfilis, 
Quinctilius :  these  are  the  forms 
for  the  Republican  period  ;  under 
the  Empire  Quintus,  Quintilis,  etc. 
quom:  §  57. 
quor  :  see  cur. 
quotiens  and  quoties. 

R. 

raeda  :  ■  better  than  re  da  ;  not  rh-  ; 
§  10.  2. 

Raetia,  Raeti :  not  Rhaetia,  etc. 
reccidi  (Perf.  of  recidb)  :  not  recidi. 
reciperb  :  earlier  recupero ;  §  6.  2. 
Regium :  not  Rhegium. 
reicio  :  better  than  rejicio  ;  §  60. 
religib  :  not  relligio. 
reliquiae  :  not  relliquiae. 
reliquus  :  early  Latin  relicuos ;  §  57. 
repperi  (Perf.  of  reperio)  :  not  repen. 
reppuli  (Perf.  of  repellb)  :  not  repuli. 
reprehendo  or  reprendb. 
res  pTiblica  :  not  respublica. 
rettuli  (Perf.  of  refero)  :  not  retuVi. 
rotundus :  in  Lucretius  sometimes  ru- 
tundus ;  §  90. 

S. 

saeculum  :  not  seculum  ;  §  10.  2. 
saepes  :  not  sepes ;  §  10.  2. 
saepib :  see  saepes. 
saeta  :  not  seta;  §  10.  2. 

Sallustius  :  not  Salustius. 

sdrio  :  better  than  sarrio. 

satura  :  also  later  satira  ;  not  satyr  a. 

scaena  :  not  scena  ;  §  10.  2. 

sepulcrum :  not  sepulchrum ;  cf. 

§  31.  3- 

sescenti  :  rather  than  sexcenfi. 
setius  :  less  correctly  secius. 
singillatim  :  not  singuldtim. 


84 


Orthography. 


solarium  :  not  solatium  ’  §  25.  3. 
sollemnis  ;  not  sollennis. 
sollicito,  etc.  :  not  sblicito. 
stellio  :  not  stelio  ;  §  88.  1 . 
stillicidium  :  not  stilicidium. 
stilus  :  not  stylus. 

stuppa,  etc. :  not  stupa ,  etc. ;  §  88.  1. 
suddela  :  not  suddella. 
subicib  :  better  than  subjicio ;  §  60. 
subm-  in  compounds:  §  58.^)  2). 
suboles  :  rather  than  soboles  ;  §  90. 
subtemen  :  rather  than  subtegmen. 
subier,  subtilis  :  §  58.  e)  2). 
succ-  in  compounds  :  §  58.  g).  1). 
succus  :  rather  than  sue  us  ;  §  88.  1. 
Suebi :  not  Suevi ;  §  16.  2. 
stiff-  in  compounds:  §58.^)  1). 
sulpur  and  sulphur :  not  sulfur;  §31.4. 
supp-  in  compounds:  §  58.  g)  1). 
suscenseb  :  rather  than  succenseb. 
suspicio  :  not  suspitio  ;  §  20.  3. 
Syracusius  :  also  Syrdcosius. 

Syria:  earlier  Suria  ;  §  1.  5. 

T. 

taeter  :  not  teter ;  §  10.  2. 
tanquam  and  tamquam. 

Tarracina  :  not  Terracina. 
temperi  (Adv.)  :  not  tempori. 

*  tentdre  and  temptdre. 

Thalia  :  Thalea  is  pre-Augustan. 
thesaurus  :  thensaurus  is  archaic. 
Thrax  and  Thraex  (pdpqf). 

Hugo :  also  tinguo. 
totiens  :  also  toties. 

trdjectus  :  not  transjectus ;  §  58.  li)  3). 
trdns-  in  composition:  §  58.  h). 
trdnsicib  and  trdicio :  better  than 
trdnsjicio,  trajicio ;  §  60. 
trdnsndre  and  trdndre  :  §  58.  h) . 
Treveri  :  rather  than  Treviri. 
tribumcius  not  tribunitins  :  §  25.  3. 
tripartitus  and  tripertitus  :  §  87.  I . 


triumphb ,  triumphus :  not  triumph,  etc . 
tropaeum  and  trophaeum. 
tils  :  rather  than  thiis. 
tutela  :  better  than  tutella. 

U. 

ubicumque:  better  than  ubicunque. 
Ulixes  :  not  Ulysses, 
umerus  :  better  than  humerus  ;  §  23. 
umidus,  Timor ,  etc.  :  not  humidus,  etc.; 
§  23. 

unguo  and  ungo. 

unquam  and  umquam. 

urbs :  not  taps;  cf.  §  58.  e)  2). 

urgeo  :  not  urgueb. 

utcumque  :  better  than  utcunque. 

utrimque  :  not  utrinque. 

V. 

valetudo  :  not  valitudb . 
vehemens  :  in  poetry  often  vemens. 
Vergiliae,  Vergilius,  Verginius :  not 
Virg-. 

versus  (ver suin')  :  early  Latin  vors-. 
vertex  :  early  Latin  vortex, 
vertb  :  early  Latin  vorto. 
vester  :  early  Latin  voster. 
vicesimus  ;  commoner  than  vigesimus. 
victima  :  earlier  victuma  ;  §  6.  2. 
vilicus :  not  znllicus. 
vinculum  and  vinclum  ;  §  91. 
vino  lent  us  and  vinulentus. 

Voted  mis  :  §  -57.  a). 

Volsci  :  §57  .a). 

Volsiniensis :  §  57.  a). 

Volturnus :  §  57.  a). 

Vortumnus :  under  the  Empire  also 
Ver  turn  mis  ;  cf.  vertb. 
vulgus :  earlier  volgus ;  §  57.  a), 
vulnus  ;  earlier  volnus ;  §  57.  a), 
vulpes :  earlier  volpes ;  §  57.  a), 
vultur  :  earlier  voltur ;  §  57.  a), 
vultus:  earlier  voltus ;  §  57.  a). 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  LATIN  SOUNDS. 

THE  VOWELS.1 

Ablaut. 

62.  The  Indo-European  parent-speech,  from  which  the  Greek, 
Latin,  Sanskrit,  Avestan*  Slavic,  Teutonic,  Keltic,  Armenian,  and 
Albanian  languages  are  descended,  had  a  vowel  system  of  con¬ 
siderable  regularity.  By  variation  of  the  root  vowel,  each  mono¬ 
syllabic  root  was  regularly  capable  of  appearing  in  three  different 
forms.  Thus  the  Indo-European  root  gen-,  ‘bring  forth,’  had 
also  a  form  gon-,  and  another  form  gn-.  The  different  phases  in 
which  a  root  appears  are  designated  as  ‘  grades  ’ ;  while  the  gen¬ 
eral  phenomenon  of  variation  is  called  Ablaut  or  Vowel  Gradation. 
The  different  phases  of  a  root  taken  together  form  an  *  ablaut- 
series.’  Six  such  ablaut-series  have  been  shown  to  have  belonged 
to  the  Indo-European  parent-speech.  Of  the  three  grades  belong¬ 
ing  to  each  series  two  are  characterized  by  a  fuller  vocalism  than 
the  third ;  these  fuller  phases  of  the  root  are  called  ‘  strong  ’ 
grades;  the  third  by  contrast  is  called  the  ‘weak’  grade.  Thus 
gen-  and  gon-,  cited  above,  represent  the  strong  grades ;  gn-, 
which  has  been  weakened  by  the  loss  of  the  e,  is  the  weak  grade. 
The  first  of  the  two  strong  grades  gives  its  name  to  the  series 
in  which  it  occurs.  There  are  six  Indo-European  ablaut-series  : 


1  See  Brugmann,  Grundriss ,  §§  28-319;  Lindsay,  Latin  Language, chap.  iv. ; 
Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik,  §§  7-41 ;  Lateinische  Laid  lehr  e,  pp.  1 12-229. 

85 


86 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


Series. 

Weak  Grade. 

Strong  Grades.  ^ 

a-Series : 

|  9‘  J 

(  a 

6 

t  e.g.  bhp-  1 

l  eg.  bhd- 

bho- 

e-Series : 

I  8  \ 

e 

6 

t  e.g.  dhs-  < 

-  eg.  dhe- 

dho- 

o-Series : 

{  9  \ 

0 

6 

t  e.g.  ps-  < 

^  e.g.  p'o- 

po- 

a-Series :  ■< 

f  Vowel  vanishes  J 

a 

a,  6 

1 

L  e-s-  g-  ' 

•  ag- 

ag- 

I 

r  Vowel  vanishes 

(  e 

6 

6-Series:  J 

eg.  pt- 

pet- 

pot- 

1 

l  drk- 

O 

I  derk- 

dork- 

6-Series : 

f  Vowel  vanishes 

1  6 

0 

l  e.g. 

l  od- 

od- 

63.  The  origin  of  this  variation  in  the  form  of  roots  is  attrib¬ 
uted  with  great  probability  to  accentual  conditions  prevailing  in 
the  parent-speech.  Some  uncertainty  still  prevails  concerning 
details  in  the  various  series ;  but  for  practical  purposes  the  above 
scheme  is  sufficiently  accurate  (see  Brugmann,  Grundriss,  i.  § 
307  ff. ;  Lindsay,  Latin  Language ,  p.  253  ff. ;  Stolz,  Lat.  Gr., 
§  15  ff.  ;  Lateinische  Lautlehre,  p.  157;  Johnson’s  Cyclopaedia , 
Article  Ablaut).  Of  the  different  Indo-European  languages  some 
have  preserved  the  Indo-European  Ablaut  with  great  fidelity ; 
this  is  notably  the  case  with  Greek  and  Teutonic.  In  other  lan¬ 
guages  the  Ablaut  has  become  much  obscured ;  Latin  belongs  to 
the  latter  class.  Most  Latin  roots  appear  in  only  a  single  grade, 
the  other  two  grades  having  disappeared  in  the  course  of  the 
development  of  the  language.  Yet  some  examples  of  the  original 
gradation  are  preserved.  These  will  be  considered  according  to 
the  different  ablaut-series  in  which  they  occur. 

^-Series. 

64.  The  ^-series  is  by  far  the  best  represented  of  any  in  Latin ; 
it  embraces  three  sub-types. 

1  3  represents  an  obscure  short  vowel,  which  developed  variously  in  the  dif¬ 
ferent  Indo-European  languages,  —  as  a,  e ,  i,  0. 


Ablaut. 


87 


a )  The  e  or  0  is  followed  by  some  consonant  which  is  not  a 
nasal  or  a  liquid,  eg.  root  dc -,  dec-,  doc-,  seen  in  disco  (for 
*di-dc-sco) ;  dec-et ;  doc-eo ;  root  sd-,  sed-,  sod-,  seen  in  sido  (for 
*si-sd-o);  sed-eo  ;  sol-ium  (for  *sod-ium  ;  see  §  95.  2).  The  root 
es-  (‘to  be’)  has  only  the  weak  grade  and  one  of  the  strong 
grades.  The  weak  grade  is  seen  in  s-im  ;  s-unt,  etc . ;  the  strong 
grade  in  es-t ;  es-se,  etc . 

b)  The  e  or  0  is  followed  by  a  liquid  or  nasal.  By  the  loss  of 
the  e  in  the  weak  grade  the  liquid  or  nasal  often  becomes  vocalic, 
developing  according  to  the  principles  explained  in  §§  100,  102. 
Thus  from  the  Indo-European  root  gn-,  gen-,  gon-,  the  Latin  has 
gnatus  (for  gn-tus ;  see  §  102.  2),  and  gen-us  ;  no  form  with  gon- 
has  been  preserved ;  gi-gn-o,  however,  shows  us  another  form  of 
the  weak  grade.  From  the  root  mn-,  men-,  mon-,  the  Latin  has 
mens  (for  *mn-t(i)s)  and  mon-eo. 

c)  The  e  or  o  of  the  strong  grades  was  originally  followed  by 
i  or  u ;  in  the  weak  grade  the  e,  as  usual,  disappeared,  leaving  i 
or  u.  Thus  originally  : 

i  ei  oi 

\  * 

ti  eu  ou 

But  of  these  diphthongs,  ei  became  i,  while  the  others  became  u, 
except  that  oi  ( oe )  has  been  retained  in  a  few  words.  Examples  : 
root  fid- ,  feid-,  foid-,  seen  in  fid-es ;  fido  (for  feid-o)  ;  foed-us 
(earlier  foid-us) ;  root  due-,  deuc-,  done-,  seen  in  duc-em,  duco  (for 
earlier  *deuc-o) . 

Further  examples  of  Ablaut  in  the  ^-series  are  given  in  Stolz, 
Lat.  Grammatik,  p.  263  f. ;  Lat.  Lautlehre,  p.  157  fif. ;  Lindsay, 
Lat.  Language,  p.  255. 

^-Series. 

65.  No  root  shows  all  three  grades  in  Latin;  0,  the  obscure 
vowel,  develops  variously  as  a,  i,  e.  The  root  dho-,  dhe-,  dho-, 
1  place,’  ‘  put,’  shows  the  weak  grade  in  con-di-tus,  etc.,  and  one 
of  the  strong  grades  in  sacer-do-s ;  fanum  (for  */as- mini)  shows 


\ 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


88 

the  weak  grade ;  fes-tus,  the  corresponding  strong  grade.  Cf. 
also  ra-tus,  re-ri ;  sa-tus,  se-men. 

<z-Series. 

66.  The  obscure  vowel  ?  develops  as  d.  The  weak  grade  is 
seen  in  fa-teor ;  the  corresponding  strong  grade  in  fa-ri,  fama. 
Cf.  also  std-tus ;  sta-men ,  Stator ;  rdd-ere  and  rod-ere  exhibit  the 
two  strong  grades. 

<?- Series. 

67.  The  obscure  vowel  o  appears  as  a.  The  weak  grade  is 
seen  in  dd-mus ,  ddi-tus  ;  the  corresponding  strong  grade  in  donum , 
dos.  Cf.  also  cdt-us ,  cos  (for  *cots). 

^-Series. 

68.  One  form  of  the  strong  grade  is  seen  in  ag-o,  the  other  in 
ambages.  The  a  may  combine  with  i  to  produce  the  diphthong 
ai.  An  instance  of  this  is  seen  in  aes-tus  (for  *aid-tus),  ‘  burning 
heat  ’ ;  the  weak  grade  of  the  same  root  is  seen,  id-us,  originally  an 
adjective  :  ‘  burning/  £  bright/  with  nodes  understood,  i.e.  ‘  the  bright 
nights’  when  the  moon  was  full,  and  so  the  15th  of  the  month, 
‘  the  Ides.’ 

^-Series. 

69.  Examples  of  this  scantily  represented  ablaut-series  are 
fod-ere,  fod-i>  —  both  strong  grade.  Cf.  also  bd-ium,  0T1 ;  fibs¬ 
ter,  nos. 

70.  Vowel  gradation  appears  not  only  in  roots,  but  also  in 
suffixes  and  in  case-endings.  Thus  in  nouns  of  the  second  declen¬ 
sion  the  suffix  varies  between  e  and  o,  the  two  strong  grades  of  the 
^-series.  The  suffix  e  is  seen  in  the  vocative  hort-e ,  and  origi¬ 
nally  existed  in  the  genitive  horti,  which  is  for  *hort-e-i ;  see 
§  126.  The  other  cases  originally  had  the  suffix  o,  eg.  hortus , 
hortum ,  for  a  primitive  hort-o-s,  hort-o-m.  Cf.  also  nouns  of  the 
type  of  genus,  generis,  originally  *  gen-os,  *gen-es-is,  where  again 
the  suffixes  -es-,  -os  show  us  the  two  strong  grades  of  the  ^-series 


Vozvel  Changes. 


89 


In  case-endings  vve  have  an  interesting  illustration  of  vowel  vari¬ 
ation  in  the  genitive  ending,  which  appears  both  as  -es  and  -os ; 
e.g. ped-is  (for  *ped-es),  senatu-os  (early  Latin). 

Vowel  Changes. 

a. 

71.  a  in  syllables  which  were  accented  at  the  time  of  the  early 
Latin  accentuation  (see  §  55)  remains  unchanged;  in  syllables 
which  were  unaccented  at  that  period,  a  develops  as  follows  : 

1.  Before  two  consonants,  before  r,  and  in  final  syllables,  a  reg¬ 
ularly  becomes  e.g .  acceptus  for  *dccaptus;  particeps  for  *  par¬ 
ti  caps  ;  confectus  for  *  conf actus  ;  impertid  for  *impartid  ;  reddere 
for  *reddare  ;  pede ,  milite ,  etc.  (so-called  Ablative,  really  Instru¬ 
mental  Singular)  for  *peda ,  * milita ,  etc. 

2.  Before  a  single  consonant  in  the  interior  of  a  word,  a  becomes 
i,  eg.  adigo  for  *adagd ;  concino  for  *concand ;  insitus  for  *insa- 
tus  ;  redditus  for  *reddatus. 

3.  Before  /  +  a  consonant  (but  not  before//),  a  becomes  u, 
e.g.  exsulto  for  *exsaltd  ;  inculco  for  * incalcd. 

4.  Before  labials,  a  becomes  the  sound  which  was  represented 
by  u  in  the  earlier  period,  and  later  by  i  (see  §  6.  2),  eg.  mancu- 
pium ,  later  mancipium ,  for  *  inane  apium. 

5.  Before  ng,  a  becomes  i  (through  the  medium  of  /),  eg. 
attingo  for  *attangd. 

a. 

72.  d  regularly  remains  unchanged  in  Latin  in  all  situations, 
eg.  mater  ;  contractus  for  *  contractus. 

w 

e. 

73.  1.  Z  is  retained  in  Latin  : 

a)  Before  r,  e.g.fero ,  conferd ,  sceleris. 

d)  When  final,  eg.  horte ,  age,  agite . 

c)  Usually  before  two  consonants,  e.g.  scelestus ,  obsessus , 
auspex. 


90 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


2.  e  becomes  i : 

a)  Before  a  single  consonant  in  syllables  which  were  unac¬ 
cented  by  the  early  accentuation  (§  55),  e.g.  colligo 
for  *  co  lie  go  ;  militis  for  *miletes  ;  obsided  for  *obsedeo  ; 
protinus  for  *protenus. 

by  Sometimes  before  n  or  m  +  a  consonant,  e.g.  simplex  for 
*sem-plex  (from  sem-,  ‘one’),  viginti  for  * vigen fi ; 
tinguo  for  *tenguo ;  quinque  for  *quenque  (earlier 
*penque) . 

3.  e  becomes  o  before  v,  e.g.  novos  for  an  original  *nevos  (Gr. 
ve/ros) . 

e. 

74.  e  is  regularly  retained  in  Latin  in  all  situations,  e.g.  rectus , 

correctus ,  corfexi ,  die. 

1,  I. 

75.  i  and  i  are  regularly  retained  in  all  situations,  e.g.  quis ,  tur- 
ribus ;  vivo ,  incLino ,  except  that  final  -1  may  become  -e,  e.g.  mare 
for  *mari ;  sedile  for  *sedili. 


o. 

76.  1.  o,  except  in  the  very  earliest  stages  of  the  language  (prior 
to  230  b.c.),  has  everywhere  become  u  in  unaccented  syllables, 
e.g./itius,  for  earlier  filios ;  donum  for  *do?iom;  opus  for  *opos ; 
vehunt  for  *veho?it;  contuli  for  *contoli;  sedulo  for  *se  dolo. 
Final  syllables  in  - quos ,  -quom  ;  -vos,  -vom  ;  - uos ,  - uom ,  etc .,  re¬ 
tained  the  o  to  a  considerably  later  period;  see  §  57.  1.  o  was 
also  regularly  retained  before  r,  e.g.  temporis. 

2.  Before  a  nasal  -f  a  consonant,  o  also  occasionally  changes 
to  u,  e.g.  uncus  for  a  primitive  *oncos  ;  umbilicus  for  *ombiftcos. 

6. 

77.  o  regularly  remains  unchanged  in  Latin  in  all  situations, 
e.g.  donum ,  victores,  liceto. 


Vowel  Changes. 


9i 


78.  u  before  labials,  became  1  about  the  close  of  the  Republic 
(see  §  6.  2),  e.g.  libet  for  earlier  lubet ;  lacrima  for  earlier 
lacruma ;  lacibus  for  earlier  lacubus. 

♦ 

u. 

79.  u  is  regularly  retained  in  all  situations,  eg.fumus ,  conjunc¬ 
tion ,  etc. 

ai. 

80.  1.  In  syllables  which,  under  the  early  accentuation  (see 
§  55),  were  accented,  original  ai  was  retained,  becoming  about 
100  b.c.  ae,  which,  in  turn,  late  in  imperial  times,  developed  into 
a  monophthongal  sound ;  see  §  10.  2. 

2.  In  syllables  which,  under  the  early  accentuation  (§  55),  were 
unaccented ,  original  ai  became  regularly  i,  eg.  inquir'd  for  *in- 
quairb ;  existumo  for  *exaisiumo ;  virtiiti,  militi ,  etc.,  for  *virtu- 
tai ,  etc. ;  mensis ,  porfis,  etc.,  for  mensais ,  etc. 

oi.  . 

81.  1.  In  syllables  which,  under  the  early  Latin  accentuation 
(see  §  55),  were  accented,’  original  oi,  though  retained  in  the 
oldest  monuments  of  the  language,  early  passed  into  u,  eg.  utilis 
for  oitilis ;  unus  for  oinos.  In  a  few  words,  however,  oi  was 
retained  and  passed  into  oe,  e.g.  foedus,  moenia ;  §11. 

2.  In  final  syllables,  which,  under  the  early  accentuation  (§  55), 
were  unaccented,  oi  became  i,  eg.  horti  (Nom.  Plu.)  for  *hortoi ; 
horfis  for  *ho?dois  (§  86).  A  trace  of  -ois  is  preserved  in  oloes, 
for  earlier  *olois  (Festus,  p.  19,  M.). 

ei. 

82.  It  is  uncertain  whether  ei  was  still  a  diphthong  in  the  earli¬ 
est  monuments  of  the  Latin  language  or  had  already  become  a 
monophthong.  Certainly  the  monophthongal  value  ( i )  estab- 


92 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


lishecl  itself  very  early,  and  i  came  to  be  the  regular  orthography 
for  the  earlier  ei,  e.g.  died  for  deico ;  fido  for  feido ;  divus  for 
deivos ,  etc. 

ui. 

83.  This  diphthong  undergoes  no  changes ;  see  §  14. 

au. 

84.  1.  au  is  regularly  retained  in  syllables  which,  under  the 
early  accentuation  (§  55),  took  the  accent,  e.g.  aurora ,  claudo. 
In  the  speech  of  common  life  this  au  had  a  tendency  to  become 
an  open  d  (later  close),  and  in  some  words  this  colloquial  pro¬ 
nunciation  even  established  itself  permanently  in  the  literary  lan¬ 
guage.  Examples  are  :  Clodius  for  Claudius  ;  plddo ,  in  explodo , 
implodd ,  etc. 

2.  In  syllables  which,  under  the  early  accentuation  (§  55), 
remained  unaccented,  au  regularly  became  u,  e.g.  includo  for 
*  in  claudo  ;  dlfrudd  for  *d  efraudd. 

eu  and  ou. 

85.  Primitive  Latin  eu  and  ou  are  nowhere  preserved  in  the 

% 

existing  monuments  of  the  Latin  language.  eu  first  became  ou 
(seen  in  early  Latin  douco  for  *deuco ),  and  subsequently  devel¬ 
oped  to  u,  e.g.  diico ,  tiiced.  Original  ou  became  u  directly. 

Shortening  of  Long  Diphthongs. 

86.  The  name  ‘  long  diphthong  ’  is  given  to  diphthongs  whose 
first  element  consisted  of  a  long  vowel.  Ai,  oi,  ei ,  eu,  au,  ou 
existed  in  the  parent-speech ;  of  these  ai,  au,  and  oi  were  inher¬ 
ited  by  the  Latin  in  a  few  instances  and  developed  as  follows  : 

a)  In  the  interior  of  a  word  before  a  consonant,  the  long  diph¬ 
thongs  suffered  shortening  of  the  first  element,  e.g.  *hortois  (for 
*hortdis),  whence  hortis  (see  §  81.  2);  gaudeo  for  *gduded  {cf. 
gdvisus)  ;  naufragus  for  * naufr a gus  (cf.  navis). 


Vowel  Changes. 


93 


5)  When  final,  di  and  di  probably  became  di  and  oi  before  an 
initial  vowel,  but  a  and  d  before  an  initial  consonant.  Thus,  in 
the  Dative  Singular  of  5-stems  (primitive  termination  -di),  we 
should  originally  have  had  *porta,  for  example,  before  consonants, 
portdi  before  vowels.  The  ante- vocalic  form  portai  (portae ; 
§  80.  i)  ultimately  established  itself  as  the  sole  inflection.  Yet 
in  early  Latin,  we  find  traces  of  the  ante-consonantal  form,  eg. 
Matvta,  CIL.  i.  177.  In  the  Dative  Singular  of  <?-stems  (primi¬ 
tive  termination  -di)  the  ante-consonantal  form  prevailed,  eg, 
populo.  Yet,  in  the  earliest  Latin  inscription  (CIL.  xiv.  4123), 
we  find  Nvmasioi,  the  ante-vocalic  form. 

Re- composition  and  De-composition. 

87.  1.  The  principles  laid  down  in  the  foregoing  sections  for 
the  change  of  vowels  and  diphthongs  in  the  (originally)  unac¬ 
cented  syllables  of  compounds  often  seem  to  be  violated.  Thus 
appeto ,  expeto,  intellego ,  neglego  occur  where  the  law  demands 
*appito,  *expito ,  negligo,  intelligo.  These  apparent  irregularities 
are  in  reality  not  due  to  any  violation  of  the  law,  but  are  the 
result  of  ‘  Re-composition,’  i.e.  the  identity  of  the  simple  verb 
was  so  keenly  felt  that  the  language  restored  it  in  the  compound, 
thus  replacing  the  regular  *appito,  intelligo ,  etc.,  with  appeto ,  intel- 
lego,  etc.  Other  instances  of  the  same  kind  are  exaequo,  conclau- 
sus,  exquaero ,  where  phonetic  laws  would  demand  *exiquo,  con- 
clusus,  exquiro. 

Many  compound  words  are  also  naturally  much  later  than  the 
operation  of  the  laws  above  referred  to. 

2.  Sometimes  the  form  taken  by  a  verb  in  composition  occurs 
instead  of  the  original  form,  eg.  cludo  for  claudo,  after  includo , 
etc. ;  plied  for  pleco  after  implied ,  etc.  This  process  may  be  called 
‘  De-composition.’ 

3.  Re-composition  and  De-composition  manifest  themselves 
not  only  in  connection  with  vocalic  changes,  but  also  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  many  of  the  consonantal  changes  enumerated  in  the 


94 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


following  sections.  Cf.  e.g.  transduc'd  as  an  illustration  of  Re¬ 
composition.  The  phonetic  form  is  traduco ,  which  also  occurs. 
Cf.  also  sescenfi  (the  phonetic  form;  §  105.  1),  but  sexcenti  (Re¬ 
composition)  . 

Shortening  of  Long  Vowels. 

88.  1.  A  group  of  some  twenty  words  exhibits  shortening  of  an 
accented  long  vowel,  with  compensatory  doubling  of  the  following 
consonant,  viz.  Juppiter  (for  earlier  Jupiter -),  cuppa ,  litter a ,  muccus , 
succus ,  hallucindri ,  parricida ,  bacca ,  gluttus,  giuttire ,  bucca , 
damma,  mu t fire,  stuppa,  futtilis,  Messalla,  braccae ,  puppa ,  allium, 
stellib,  strenna ,  helluo,  culleus,  pilleus.  Many  of  these  words  often 
appear  in  MSS.,  texts,  and  inscriptions,  written  with  a  single  con¬ 
sonant  ;  that  represents  the  earlier  spelling.  The  orthography  of 
the  Augustan  Age  has  two  consonants. 

2.  The  vowel  was  regularly  shortened  in  final  syllables  in  m 
and  t ;  also  in  the  original  -dr  and  -~er  of  Passive  forms ;  and  in 
the  Nominative  endings  -ter,  -tor,  -sor,  -dr,  -al,  -dr. 

3.  Words  of  original  iambic  form,  e.g.  mihi,  tibi,  sibi,  modd, 
cito,  cedo,  often  suffered  permanent  shortening  of  the  ultima,  giv¬ 
ing  mihi,  tibi,  modd,  cedo,  etc.  The  name  of  ‘  Breves  Breviantes  ’ 
(‘shorts  shortening’)  has  been  given  to  this  process. 

Compensatory  Lengthening. 

89.  In  accented  syllables,  an  j1  before  a  voiced  consonant  is 
often  dropped  with  lengthening  of  a  preceding  short  vowel,  e.g. 
sido  for  *si-sd-d;  querela  for  *queresla  ;  egenus  for  *egesnos.  Often 
the  consonantal  group  contains  other  consonants  before  the  s, 
which  first  disappear  (in  accordance  with  §  105.  1),  e.g.  ala  for 
*acsla ;  remus  for  *retsmos ;  scdla  for  ^scants la ;  fernd  for 
*tecsmo.  This  lengthening  of  the  short  vowel  in  compensation, 
as  it  were,  for  an  omitted  consonant,  is  designated  ‘  compensatory 
lengthening.’ 


Vowel  Changes. 
Assimilation  of  Vowels. 


95 


90.  Vowels  are  occasionally  assimilated  to  each  other  in  suc¬ 
cessive  syllables,  e.g.  nihil  for  *nehil ;  nisi  for  *nesi  ;  soboles  for 
suboles  ;  rutundus  (chiefly  in  poetry)  for  rotundus ;  tugurium 
for  *tegurium  {tego) ;  purpura  for  7rop<jivpa ;  and  in  reduplicated 
perfects,  e.g.  momordi  for  mentor di ;  totondi  for  tetondi;  pupugi 
for  pepugi ;  etc.  Assimilation  is  mainly  restricted  to  short  vowels, 
but  possibly  we  should  recognize  the  assimilation  of  a  long  vowel 
in  filius ,  lit.  ‘suckling,’  for  *fe-lius,  root  dlfe- ;  in  suspicio  for 
*  suspicio  (root  spec-)  ;  subtilis  for  *subtelis  {tela). 


Parasitic  Vowels. 

91.  In  the  immediate  environment  of  a  liquid  or  nasal,  a  para¬ 
sitic  vowel  sometimes  develops.  Thus,  especially  in  the  suffixes 
- tlo -,  -bio-,  -clo-,  which  become  -tulo-,  -bulo-,  -cido-,  eg.  in  vitulus , 
stabulum,  saecidum ;  yet  the  original  forms  continued  in  use  in 
the  colloquial  language  and  in  poetry,  eg.  saeclum,  vinclum. 
Further  examples  are  famulus  (for  *famlos)  ;  populus  for  *poplos  ; 
and  several  words  borrowed  from  the  Greek,  e.g.  Aesculapius 
(’Actk/I 7777-1  os)  ;  mina  {pv a)  ;  drachuma  {Spa^py) . 


Syncope. 

92.  In  early  Latin  a  short  vowel  following  an  accented  syllable 
was  often  dropped.  Illustrations  of  this  are  :  auceps  for  *aviceps  ; 
auspex  for  *avispex;  ardor  for  *aridor ;  reddo  for  re-d{i)do ; 
aetas  for  aevitas ;  prudTens  for  *prov{i)dens ;  valde  for  valid~e  ; 
officina  for  *op{i)ficma ;  anceps  for  amb(i)-ceps.  Syncope  in 
final  syllables  is  seen  in  ager  for  *agr(o)s,  *agrs,  *agr,  etc.,  and 
acer  for  acris,  *acrs,  *acr,  etc.;  see  §  100. 

Apocope. 

93.  1.  Final  e  and  i  often  disappear,  e.g.  et  (for  *eti;  Gr.  In), 
aut  (for  *auti)  ;  quot,  tot  (for  *quoti ,  *toti;  cf.  toti-dem)  ;  ob  for 
*obi;  and  in  neuter  /-stems,  e.g.  animal  for  *animali ;  calcar 


g6 


The  Latin  Sounds . 


for  *calcdri.  But  dissyllabic  z-stems  change  -i  to  -e,  e.g.  mare 
for  *mari. 

2.  Final  o  disappears  in  ab,  for  an  original  *apo  (Gr.  faro)  ; 
and  sub  for  *supo  {cf.  Gr.  vtto).  On  the  change  of  p  to  b,  see 
§  96.  1. 

THE  CONSONANTS.1 

The  Mutes. 

The  Palatal  and  Guttural  Mutes,  c,  q,  g. 

94.  1.  There  were  two  series  of  k  and  ^--sounds  in  Indo-Euro¬ 
pean,  the  former  designated  as  ‘  Palatals,’  the  latter  as  ‘  Velars.’ 
The  Palatals  were  formed  further  forward  in  the  mouth,  and 
developed  in  most  languages  as  k  (in  Latin  regularly  as  k  (e), 
rarely  as  q ;  in  Sanskrit  and  Slavic  as  sibilants,  i1,  sh,  etc. ) .  The 
Velars  were  formed  further  back  in  the  throat,  and  fall  into  two 
subdivisions  : 

a)  The  Velars  of  the  first  type  develop  in  all  languages  as  plain 
gutturals,  —  k,  g. 

b)  The  Velars  of  the  second  type  develop  with  labialization , 
i.e.  they  have  a  parasitic  w-sound  after  the  k  or  g.  Latin  repre¬ 
sents  these  sounds  respectively  by  qu  and  gu. 

2.  Examples  of  the  different  Gutturals  are  : 

Palatals  :  centum ,  dlcere ,  socer. 

qu  for  c  appears  in  quet'or ,  queo ,  equos  {cf.  Skr.  dfvas)  ago, 
genu,  argentum. 

Velars : 

a)  Without  Labialization  :  cavere,  canere  ;  grus,  gelu,  tego. 

b)  With  Labialization  :  quis,  qui,  etc.  ;  sequor ;  -que  ;  -linquo  ; 
stinguo ,  unguen.  Before  u  or  a  consonant,  qu  appears  as  c,  e.g. 


1  See  in  general  Brugmann,  Grundriss ,  §§  320-598  ;  Lindsay,  Latin  Lan¬ 
guage ,  chap.  iv.  ;  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik ,  §§  42-61  ;  Lateinische  Laut- 
lehre ,  pp.  232-291. 


The  Mutes. 


97 


stercus  ( cf.  sterquilinium) ,  arcus  ( cf '.  arquitenens )  ;  -lictus  (cf. 
- linquv ) .  When  initial,  (/.<?.  gv)  loses  the  g  and  becomes  v,  e.g. 
(g)  venire,  (g)  vivos,  (g)vorare. 

3.  -cn-  and  -cm-  occasionally  develop  as  gn  and  gm,  e.g.  saljg- 
nus  from  salix  (root  sa/ic-)  ;  dignus  for  *  dec -nus ;  segmentum  for 
*  sec- men  turn  ( sec-o ). 

The  Dental  Mutes,  t,  d. 

95.  1.  t  regularly  appears  as  t,  but  in  the  Indo-European  suffix 
-tlo-,t  became  c,  e.g.  piaclum  (whence  piaculum )  for  *  pi atlom  ; 
saeclum  (saeculum)  for  *saetlom;  vinclum ,  etc.  Sometimes  this 
-clo-  subsequently  (by  dissimilation;  see  §  no)  developed  to 
-cro-,  when  a  preceding  syllable  had  l,  e.g.  lavacrum  for  *  lav  adorn, 
*lavatlom;  in  quadraginta,  quadringenti,  d  has  not  developed 
from  t;  quadr-  probably  represents  a  different  word  ;  see  §  183.  13. 

2.  d  is  regularly  retained,  but  becomes  /  in  a  few  words,  e.g. 
lacruma  for  dacruma  (preserved  in  Ennius)  ;  lingua  for  early 
dingua  (helped  perhaps  by  association  in  the  folk-consciousness 
with  lingere,  ‘lick’)  ;  solium  for  *sod-ium  (Ablaut  of  sed- ;  see  § 
64.  a)  ;  levir  for  *devir  (Gr.  8d(/:)rjp). 

The  Labial  Mutes,  p  and  b. 

96.  1 .  p  regularly  remains  unchanged  ;  but  in  the  prepositions 
ab,  ob ,  sub,  b  has  developed  from  an  earlier  p.  The  original  forms 
of  these  words  were  *apo  (Gr.  ebro),  *op-i  (in  Ablaut  relation  to 
Gr.  €7rt ;  cf.  §  64.  a)  ;  supo  ( cf '.  Gr.  Wo).  By  loss  of  the  final 
vowel  these  became  *ap,  *op,  *sup  (cf.  sup-er,  supra)  ;  ap-  and 
op-  are  probably  to  be  recognized  in  aperio  and  operio;  but  before 
voiced  consonants  the  p  of  ap,  op,  and  sup  regularly  became  b  by 
partial  assimilation,  e.g.  ab  duce,  ob  delicta,  sub  decessu,  whence  the 
forms  with  b  ultimately  became  predominant.  In  bibb  the  initial 
b  is  for  an  original  p  by  assimilation  ;  cf.  Skr.  pibami.  By  assim¬ 
ilation  also,  an  original  *penque  became  quinque ;  and  *pequo 
became  first  *quequo,  then  coquo. 


98 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


2.  b,  as  the  descendant  of  Indo-European  b,  is  by  no  means 
a  frequent  sound  in  Latin,  particularly  initial  b.  Examples  are 
baculum ,  balbus ,  brevis ;  lubricus,  labrum.  On  the  late  develop¬ 
ment  of  intervocalic  b  to  a  spirant,  see  §  16.  2. 

The  Indo-European  Aspirates  in  Latin. 

97.  In  the  Indo-European  parent-speech  the  aspirates  were 
almost  exclusively  voiced,  i.e.  bh,  dh ,  gh  (both  palatal  and  velar)  ; 
ph ,  th ,  ch  were  extremely  rare.  These  voiced  aspirates  devel¬ 
oped  in  Latin  as  follows  : 

1 .  Indo-European  bh  became  : 

a)  f  at  the  beginning  of  words,  e.g.fdgus  (for  *bhagos ;  Gr. 

os)  ;  fa-ri  (root  bha- ;  Gr.  4>r)/u)  ;  fu-i  (root  bhu- ; 
Gr.  (f)v(o )  ;  fer-d  (root  bher- ;  Gr.  (f>£pa>). 

b)  b  in  the  interior  of  words,  e.g.  ambo  (for  *ambJw  ;  Gr. 

a/JLcfxj))  ;  orbus  (root  orbh- ;  Gr.  op<£avos)  /  mor-bus 
(suffix  -bho-). 

2.  Indo-European  dh  became  : 

a )  /at  the  beginning  of  words,  e.g.  fumus  (for  *d/iumos; 

Gr.  Ovfxrk)  ;  femina  (root  dhe- ;  Gr.  drj-Xvs)  ;  forum 
(root  dhor -). 

b)  Usually  d  in  the  interior  of  words,  e.g.  me  dins  (for  *medh- 

ios ;  cf.  Gr.  /xtWos  for  */xe#ios)  ;  aedes,  ‘fire-place,’ 
‘hearth’  (root  aidh- ;  Gr.  cn#a>,  ‘burn’);  viduus 
(root  vidh -)  ;  but 

e)  b  in  the  interior  of  words,  if  an  environing  syllable  con¬ 
tains  r,  e.g.  Tiber  (root  oudh- ;  Gr.  ovOap)  ;  rubro- 
(root  rudhro- ;  Gr.  ipvOpos)  ;  and  in  the  suffixes  -bro- 
(for  -dhro- ;  Gr.  Opo-),  e.g.  cri-brum.  Similarly  before 
/  in  the  Indo-European  suffix  -dhlo-  (Gr.  -#Ao-),  dh 
becomes  b,  e.g.  stabulum  (with  -bulum  for  -blum ;  see 

§  9')- 


The  Aspirates.  —  The  Spirants.  99 

3.  Indo-European  gh.  Here  we  must  distinguish  palatal  and 
velar  gh. 

\ 

A.  Palatal  gh.  This  became  : 

a )  h,  when  initial  or  between  vowels  in  the  interior  of 
words,  e.g.  hiems  (root  ghim- ;  Gr.  ^a/xcov)  ;  holus 
(root  ghol-)  ;  vehd  (root  vegh -)  ;  anser  (root 
ghans-)  has  lost  the  initial  h  ;  see  §  23. 

b)  g  after  zz,  e.g.  jingo  (root  dheigh -,  with  the  infix  n) . 

c)  /before  zz,  e.g.fu-ndo  (root  gheu-) . 

I 

B.  Velar  gh. 

a)  Unlabialized  velar  gh  becomes  regularly  /z,  but  g 

before  r,  e.g.  hostis  (for  *ghostis)  ;  pre-hendo  (root 
ghend -)  ;  gradior  (for  *ghrad- ). 

b)  Labialized  velar  gh  becomes,  — 

1 )  f  when  initial,  e.g.formus  (for  *ghormos) . 

2)  gu  after  zz,  e.g.  ninguit  (root  (s) nigh-,  with 
"  infix  zz). 

3)  v  between  vowels,  e.g.  nivis ,  nivi ,  etc.  (root 

snigh-). 

The  Spirants,  s,  /  h. 

98.  1.  s  is  the  most  important  of  the  spirants,  as  regards 
phonetic  changes.  An  original  ^  regularly  became  r  between 
vowels  (‘Rhotacism  ’),  e.g.  ger-o  for  *ges-o  (cf.  ges-si,  ges-tus)  ; 
dirimb  for  *dis-emb  ( cf.  distinguo )  ;  temporis  for  *  tempos -is  (cf. 
tempus )  ;  porfarum  for  *portasom.  This  change  took  place 
within  the  historical  period  of  the  language.  It  had  been  con¬ 
summated  before  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  b.c.  But  the 
grammarians  retained  the  tradition  of  the  earlier  forms,  and  often 
cite  such  words  as  arbosem,  pignosa ,  etc.  This  change  of  s  to  r 
sometimes  seems  to  occur  before  v,  e.g.  larva  (root  las-).  But 
this  is  only  apparent ;  v  in  such  cases  is  secondary,  having  devel¬ 
oped  from  zz,  so  that  the  rhotacism  is  regular :  lar-u-a  (for 


IOO 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


*las-u-a )  ;  cf.  Lar-es  (for  Lases)  ;  fur-u-os  (for  */us-u-os ;  cf. 
fus-eus)  ;  Mener-u-a  (for  *  Menes-u-a )  ;  la-ru-a  and  Miner-u-a 
are  both  found  in  Plautus. 

2.  Wherever  s  appears  between  vowels  in  the  classical  language 
it  is  a  result  of  the  reduction  of  ss  after  a  long  vowel  or  a  diph¬ 
thong,  e.g.  mist  for  mis  si  (i.e.  *mit-si)  ;  suasi  for  suassi  (i.e. 
*suadsT)  ;  haesi  (for  haes-st)  ;  causa  for  caussa ;  divisid  for 
divissio. 

The  forms  with  double  ss  were  current  in  Cicero’s  day  ( cf.  Quin¬ 
tilian  i.  7.  20),  and  occur  occasionally  in  inscriptions  much  later; 
after  short  vowels  ss  was,  of  course,  always  retained,  eg.  fissus , 
scissus ,  etc. 

3.  In  a  few  cases  intervocalic  s  appears  to  have  resisted  rhota¬ 
cism,  eg.  basium ,  miser,  caesarics.  Possibly  the  .r  was  retained  in 
miser  and  caesarics  as  a  result  of  dissimilation  (§  no),  i.e.  in 
order  to  avoid  *mirer,  *caeraries. 

■  4.  By  analogy,  the  r  resulting  from  rhotacism  sometimes  crept 
into  the  Nominative  from  the  oblique  cases,  eg.  honor  (originally 
hollos')  after  honoris ,  honbri  (originally  *  ho  no  sis,  etc.). 

5.  For  the  omission  of  the  spirant  h,  see  §  23. 

The  Liquids,  /,  r. 

The  Liquids  as  Consonants. 

99.  1.  As  consonants,  the  Latin  liquids  exhibit  few  peculiari¬ 
ties.  Their  most  important  feature  is  a  tendency  toward  dissimi¬ 
lation,  as  a  result  of  which  l  changes  to  r,  or  r  to  /,  to  avoid  the 
repetition  of  l  ox  r  in  successive  syllables.  Examples  are  seen  in 
the  suffixes  -ari-,  -cro-,  for  -ali-,  -clo-  (from  -tlo- ;  see  §  95.  1), 
eg.  exemplaris  (to  avoid  *  exempt alis)  ;  lucrum  (to  avoid  *luctum). 
So  caeruleus  is  for  *caeluleus  ( caelum ).  Sometimes  r  disappears 
altogether  as  a  result  of  the  tendency  to  avoid  two  r’s  in  succes¬ 
sive  syllables,  eg.  praestigiae  for  praestrigiae  (praestringo)  ;  sempi- 
ternus  for  * sempe(r)-ternus . 


The  Liquids. 


IOI 


\ 


The  Liquids  as  Sonants . 

100.  In  the  Indo-European  parent-speech,  whenever  roots 
which,  in  their  strong  grades,  contained  el,  ol ;  er,  or,  became 
reduced  to  the  weak  grade  (see  §  64.  b),  the  /  or  r  (by  the  disap¬ 
pearance  of  the  e  or  o )  became  sonant,  i.e.  endowed  with  vocalic 
character,  usually  indicated  by  l,  r.  English  has  these  sounds  in 
botl  (written  bottle)  ;  centr  (written  centre),  etc.  These  Indo- 
European  sonant  liquids  developed  in  Latin  as  follows  : 

1.  I  developed  regularly  as  ul \  sometimes  as  ol,  e.g.  pulsus  (for 
an  Indo-Eur.  *pl-tos;  root  pel-)  ;  -cultus  in  oc-cultus  (for  an  Indo- 
Eur.  *cl-tos  ;  root  eel-)  ;  tollo,  i.e.  *tol-no  (for  *il-no,  root  tel-). 

Sometimes  the  sonant  l  was  long  in  quantity  and  then  devel¬ 
oped  as  al  or  la,  e.g.  salvus  for  *sI-vos  ;  lana  ( i.e .  *vldna)  for 
*vl-nd,  from  root  vel- ;  cf.  vel-lus  ;  Idtus  (i.e.  *t Idtus  ;  §  104.  1  a), 
from  root  tel-. 

2.  r  developed  regularly  as  or  or  ur,  eg.  curvus  (for  *crvos,  root 
cerv- ;  cf.  cerv-ix)  ;  porta  (for  *pr-ta ,  root  per- ;  cf.  Gr.  7rapw, 
for  *7rlp-uo) ;  curtus  (for  *cr-tos,  root  cer- ;  cf.  Gr.  re  [pm  for  */<ep- ico). 

Like  the  sonant  /,  the  sonant  r  was  sometimes  long  in  quantity. 
It  then  developed  as  ar  or  rd,  eg.  annus  (for  fmbs)  ;  stratus  (for 
*str-tos;  root  ster-  in  sterno)  ;  crdiis  (for  *cr-tis) . 

3.  In  certain  instances  a  sonant  r  arose  in  Latin  itself.  This 
sonant  r  developed  differently  from  the  Indo-European  r  above 
described,  regularly  becoming  er.  Thus  in  the  Nominative  Singu¬ 
lar  of  w-stems,  ager,  for  example,  was  originally  *ag?'os ;  by  Syn¬ 
cope  (see  §  92)  *agros  became  *agrs,  whence  by  assimilation 
*agr(r),  and  by  development  of  r  to  er,  ager..  Similarly,  stems 
in  -ris  developed  an  er  in  the  Nominative  Singular.  Thus  acris 
gave  first  *acrs,  then  *dcr,  whence  deer.  Other  instances  of  the 
same  change  are  libertas  for  *lfbr-tds  (root  libro-),  acerbus  for 
*acr-bus ;  incertus  for  *tncrtus  (from  *incritos,  root  cri- )  ;  secerno 
for  *secr?id  (from  *  sec  rind,  root  cri-)  ;  agellus,  i.e.  *ager-lus  for 
*  age -lus,  from  agro-. 


102 


The  Latin  Sounds . 


The  Nasals,  m,  n. 

The  Nasals  as  Consonants. 

101.  As  consonants  the  Latin  nasals  exhibit  few  peculiarities. 

1.  Before j,  771  became  n,  e.g.  ve7iid  for  *ge77ijd  (with  labio- velar 
g;  §  94.  1 )  ;  quo7tiam  for  * quoTTtjam. 

2.  On  the  tendency  of  7n  to  disappear  before  labials,  and  n 
before  dentals,  see  §  20.  2-4. 

The  Nasals  as  Sonants. 

102.  In  the  Indo-European  parent-speech,  whenever  roots 
which,  in  their  strong  grade,  contained  <?;/*,  0771 ;  e7i ,  071,  became 
reduced  to  the  weak  grade  (see  §  64.  b ),  the  771  or  71  (by  the  dis¬ 
appearance  of  the  e  or  0)  became  sonant,  i.e.  endowed  with  vocalic 
character,  usually  indicated  by  mf  n.  English  has  these  sounds 
in  but7i  (written  butto7i ),  rhytiwi,  etc. 

1.  These  Indo-European  sonant  nasals  developed  in  Latin 
regularly  as  em  and  en ,  e.g.  septe77i  (for  *sept77i)  ;  dece77i  (for 
*dec77i)  ;  ped-eTH ,  77iilitem,  etc.,  for  *ped>n,  militm ,  etc. ;  7iie77ie7itd 
for  *7)ie-77i7i-tbd ;  te7itus  for  *t7i-tos  (root  ten-')  ;  and  in  the  suffix 
-men  for  -77171,  e.g.  7ib)nen. 

2.  Like  the  liquid  sonants  (see  §  100.  1,  2)  the  nasal  sonant  n 
is  sometimes  long,  and  then  develops  as  an  or  71a,  e.g.  antae  for 
*Jitae;  gna-tus  (for  *gn-tos ;  root  gen-)  ;  gna-rus  (for  *gn-ros). 

The  Semi-vowels  j,  v. 

103.  1.  Primitive  intervocalic  j  regularly  disappeared,  e.g.  ea 
for  *eja;  ed  for  *ejd ;  ires'  for  *tre-es  {i.e.  *trejes)  ;  7H07ieb,  etc., 
for  *7/ionejo. 

2.  When  following  a  consonant,  primitive  j  became  i,  eg.  venid 
for  *ve7ijo  ;  capio  for  *capjo  ;  7nedius  for  *medjos. 

3.  Intervocalic  v  also  often  disappears,  eg.  cotitio  for  co{v)en- 
tio ;  Iat7~i7ia  for  * la{v)atrina  ;  7iblo  for  *7ie(v)old ;  jucundus  for 


Consonant  Changes.  103. 

*ju  (v)  icundus  ;  junior  for  *juvenior.  Yet  this  law  does  not  affect 
all  instances  of  intervocalic  v. 

4.  av  and  ov  in  unaccented  syllables  regularly  became  u,  eg. 
domui  for  *  domain ;  abluo  for  *ablavo ;  denuo  for  dJe  novo  ;  impluo 
for  *implovo ;  induo  for  *indovb ;  suus  and  tuns  for  earlier  sovos 
and  tovos,  owing  to  their  frequent  enclitic  (unaccented)  use. 

CONSONANT  CHANGES.1 
Initial  Combinations. 

104.  1.  Initial  consonant  combinations  often  drop  the  first 
consonant.  Thus : 

a)  Mute  lost : 

1)  p  in  tilia  for  *ptilia  (Gr.  7rreXea)  ;  sternuo  for 

*psternuo. 

2)  /  in  latus  for  *tlatus  (root  tel-);  d  in  fu-piter  for 

* Djeu-pater  ( cf \  Gr.  Zeds  for  *  Aievs). 

3)  g  in  lac  for  *glact  (cf.  ydA-a/eros),  also  in  natus  for 

gnatus ;  notus  for  gnotus ;  yet  the  g  appears  in  the 
archaic  language  and  in  compounds,  eg.  ignbtus 
(for  *ingnotus )  ;  cognatus  (for  *  con-gnat  us) .  By 
analogy  cognomen  takes  a  g  (for  *comnbmen) . 

b)  s  lost : 

1)  before  mutes:  in  caedo  for  *scaido  (cf  sci{n)do )  ; 
tnb)  for  *strio  (root  ster-)  ;  torus  for  *s torus  (root 
ster-,  stor- ;  cf.  ster-no ,  stor-ea,  Gnat’)  ;  tego  for 
*stego  (cf.  areyco)  ;  further,  in  Its,  locus ,  latus , 

‘  broad,’  for  stlis,  stlocus ,  stlatus.  Early  Latin 
still  has  stlocus  (eg.  CIL.  v.  7381)  and  stlatus , 
while  stlis  is  regularly  used  in  the  phrase  Xviri 
stPitibus  judicandis.  Cf.  also  Quintilian,  i.  4.  6. 


1  See  especially  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik ,  §§  62-69  J  Lateinische 
Lautlehre ,  pp.  295-334. 


.104 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


2)  Before  liquids  and  nasals  :  in  lubricus  for  *  slubricus  ; 
ninguit,  nix  (for  *sninguit,  *snix)  ;  minis  for 
*smirus. 

c )  v  lost  in  lana  for  *vlana  ;  radix  for  *vradix. 

2.  Other  initial  changes  : 

a)  st  stands  for  an  initial  sp  in  stud-eo  (cf.  Gr.  (nrevSco). 

b)  sve-  becomes  so-  in  soror  for  *sve-sor ;  socer  for  *svec- 

ros ;  somnus,  i.e.  *sop-nus,  for  *svepnos.  But  sv-  is 
retained  in  sua-vis,  suadeo,  sifesco ;  while  it  develops 
as  ^  in  sex  (for  *svex),  and  si  for  enclitic  *svai  ( cf. 
Oscan  svai). 

c)  dv-  becomes  b  in  bellum  (and  derivatives)  ;  in  bonus 

and  bis  (earlier  dvis ;  cf.  Gr.  Sis  for  *8pis)  ;  bimus  for 
* dvi-him-us ,  ‘  of  two  winters/  The  early  forms  dvel- 
lum ,  dvonorum  are  preserved  in  inscriptions,  and  as 
archaisms  in  the  poets. 

Consonant  Changes  in  the  Interior  of  Words. 

105.  Simplification  of  Compound  Consonant  Groups. —  1.  In 

the  case  of  groups  of  three  or  more  consonants,  one  or  more 
were  regularly  dropped  in  the  formative  period  of  the  language 
to  facilitate  pronunciation.  Examples  are  :  suscipio  for  *subs- 
cipio ;  asporto  for  *abs-porto ;  ostendo  for  *  obs-tendo  ;  misceo  for 
*mig-sceo  (cf.  Gr.  fuy-wfu) ;  disco  for  * di-dc-sco ;  illustris  for  *illuc- 
stris;  sues cb  for  *suedscb;  ecferri  for  *ecs  (ex) fern ;  pdstus  for 
*pasctus ;  mulsi  for  *mulg-si;  ultus  for  *u ictus ;  qumtus  for 
Equine tus ;  ars~i  for  *  a  nisi ;  tortus  for  *torctus  ;  ursus  for  *urc- 
sus ;  sparsi  for  *spargsi ;  biniestris  for  * biniens-tris ;  poscere  for 
*porcscere ;  Tuscus  for  *  Turscus  (cf.  Umbrian  Turskuni) ;  alnus 
for  *aisnus  ;  fuimentum  for  *fulc-mentum  ;  urna  for  *urc-na  (cf. 
urc-eus ),  quernus  for  * querc-nus. 

Here  also  belong  such  compound  forms  as  ignoseb  for  *ingnbsco; 
cognbscb  for  * congnbscb  ;  agnbsco  for  adgnoseb. 


Consojiant  Changes . 


105 


2.  Often  such  simplification  is  merely  preliminary  to  further 
changes,  —  regularly  so  when  the  groups  si,  sm,  sn  arise.  Com¬ 
pensatory  lengthening  (§89)  then  takes  place,  e.g.  pilum,  1  mor¬ 
tar/  for  *pinslum,  *  pis  lum  ;  ala  for  *acsla,  *asla.  The  preposition 
e  as  a  *  by-form  ’  of  ex  arose  in  this  way,  eg.  eligo,  enormis  for 
*ecsligo,  *esligo  ;  * ecsnormis ,  *esnormis  ;  after  e  became  estab¬ 
lished  in  compounds,  it  came  to  be  used  separately.  So  also 
tra-  arose,  eg.  trdduco  for  trails  due  0,  *  tr  as  due  0.  Trans  due  o  is 
the  result  of  ‘  Re-composition  ’  (§  87.  3). 

3.  Where  two  of  three  consonants  in  a  group  are  a  mute  and  a 
liquid,  owing  to  facility  of  pronunciation,  simplification  does  not 
take  place,  eg.  astrum ,  antrum.  Other  groups  easy  of  pronuncia¬ 
tion  are  sometimes  preserved,  eg.  seulpsi,  serpsi,  planxi,  though 
these  may  be  due  to  analogy.  Compounds  like  transcrib'd,  trans¬ 
port'd,  which  are  much  later  than  the  formative  period  of  the  lan¬ 
guage,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  exceptions. 

Assimilation. 

106.  1.  Assimilation  is  designated  as  ‘  progressive  ’  when  the 
first  of  two  consonants  is  assimilated  to  the  second,  ‘  regressive  * 
when  the  second  is  assimilated  to  the  first. 

2.  By  progressive  assimilation  the  following  changes  take  place  : 

be  to  ec,  eg.  occurro. 

M  to  gg,  eg.  suggero. 

■fcto  ff,  eg.  sufferd. 
bp  *  to  pp,  e.g.  supporto. 

**ac  to  cc,  e.g.  accurro. 

dg  to  gg,  eg.  aggero. 

dl  to  //,  e.g.  sella  (*sed-la) ;  lapillus  (*lapid-lus) . 
dn  to  nn,  e.g.  mercennarius  for  *  me  reed-  narius. 
ds  to  rr,  eg.  jussus  for  *jud-sus  (root  judh-). 
dp  to  pp,  e.g.  apporto. 
tc  to  cc,  e.g.  siccus  for  *sit-cus  (cf.  sit- is) . 
is  to  ss,  e.g.  quassi  for  *quatsi. 


io6 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


pm  to  mm,  e.g.  summus  for  *sup-mus. 

pf  to  ff,  eg.  officina  for  *opficina ,  i.e.  *opi-ficina ;  see  §  92. 
nm to  mm,  eg.  gemma  for  *gen-ma ,  i.e.  ‘sprout’  (root gen-) . 
nl  to  //,  eg.  ullus  for  *unlus ,  i.e  *  unulus  ;  see  §  92. 
ns  sometimes  to  ss,  which  was  later  simplified  to  s,  eg.  in  adjec¬ 
tives  in  -dsus.  The  earlier  form  was  formonsus ,  etc.,  whence 
formossus  {cf.  §  98.  2 )  ,formosus. 
rl  to  //,  eg.  Stella  for  *ster-la ;  agellus  for  *ager-lus  (see  §  100.  3) ; 
paullus  for  *paur-lus  {cf.  Gr.  na vpos). 

3.  By  regressive  assimilation  the  following  changes  occur  : 

Id  to  //,  eg.  mollis  for  *moldis.  Assimilation  affects  only  a  primi¬ 
tive  ld\  in  valde  (=  valide ;  §  92),  for  example,  the  Id  remains 
unchanged. 

In  to  //,  eg.  pellis  for  *pelnis ;  In  resulting  from  Syncope  (§  92), 
as  in  ulna  for  *ulena ;  volnus  for  *vol-inus ,  is  not  affected  by 
this  change. 

Is  to  //,  eg.  velle  for  *7' else  ;  facillumus  for  *facilsumus. 

rs  to  rr,  e.g.ferre  for  *fer-se  ;  tor  fere  for  *tors-ere.  Secondary  rs, 
%  * 

for  rtt,  as  in  versus  for  *verttos  (see  §  108.  1)  generally  re¬ 
mained  unchanged,  but  in  the  colloquial  language  such  an  rs 
sometimes  became  ss  or  s,  eg.  prossus,  prosus  for  prorsus  {i.e. 
proversus ) . 


4.  Partial  Assimilation.  —  Sometimes 
tial.  Thus : 


a)  A  labial  nasal  may  become  dental,  or  a  dental  nasal  may 

become  labial,  owing  to  the  influence  of  the  following 
mute,  eg.  centum  for  *cemtum ;  ventum  for  * vemtum 
(root  gem-) ;  con-tendo  for  *  com- tend o,  etc.,  whence 
arose  con-  as  a  separate  form  of  the  preposition  com-. 

b)  A  voiced  mute  may  become  voiceless  before  a  following 

voiceless  sound,  eg.  ac-tum  (for  *dg-tum);  scrip-si 
for  *s  crib  si. 


Consonant  Changes.  107 

c)  The  labial  mutes  p  and  b  are  changed  to  the  correspond¬ 
ing  nasals  before  n,  e.g ,  somnus  for  *sop-nus  (earlier 
*suep-nos  ;  §  104.  2.  b);  Samniuni  for  *  Sab- nium 
{cf.  Sabin!) ;  ante  mnae  for  *  ant-  ap-nae  ;  lit.  ‘  opposite 
fastenings,’  —  hence  ‘  yards.’ 

Metathesis. 

107.  Metathesis  or  transposition  is  perhaps  to  be  recognized  in 
fundo  for  *  fuel- no ;  unda  for  *ud-na ;  pando  for  *  pat-no ;  and 
tendo  for  *te-tn-o  (reduplicated  present). 

Other  Consonant  Changes. 

108.  1.  An  original  dt  or  tt  became  ss,  eg.  sessus  for  *sed-tus; 
passus  for  *pat-tus.  After  a  long  vowel  or  diphthong  such  an  ss 
became  s  in  the  Augustan  era,  though  retained  in  Cicero’s 
time  (§  98.  2),  e.g.  usus,  earlier  ussus,  for  *uitus ;  divisus ,  earlier 
eTivissus ,  for  *diindtus.  In  such  forms  as  lap-sus ,  pulsus ,  nexus 
(  =  nec-sus),  fixus ,  ^  has  not  developed  phonetically,  but  has 
simply  been  borrowed  from  words  like  sessus,  fisus,  ete.  When 
followed  by  r  an  original  dt  or  tt  became  st  (instead  of  ss),  eg. 
claustrum  for  * claud-  trum  ;  pedes  iris  for  *pedettris.  In  syncopated 
forms  and  compounds,  dt  simply  became  tt,  e.g.  cette  for  *ced-ate 
{cf.  ceelo),  atiendo ;  i.e.  these  forms  belong  to  a  period  in  which 
the  change  of  dt,  tt  to  ss  was  no  longer  operative. 

2.  Between  m  and  l,  a  parasitic  p  developed,  e.g.  exemplum 
for  *exemlom  ;  templum  for  * tem- lorn.  Such  a  p  developed  also 
between  m  and  s  in  sumps! ,  contempsi,  and  between  m  and  t  in 
empties  and  contemptus ;  hie  ms  did  not  develop  this  p ;  the  phe¬ 
nomenon  apparently  was  confined  to  accented  syllables. 

3.  An  original  -sr-  became  br.  The  steps  in  this  change  were 
first  from  sr  to  hr  ( h  —  Eng.  th),  then  to  fr,  whence  br.  Exam¬ 
ples  are  :  sobi'inus  for  *sosr-inus  {*sosr-  from  *sosor,  earlier  form 
of  soror ;  see  §  104.  2 .  b) ;  tenebrae  for  *tenesrae ;  membrum  for 


io8 


The  Latin  Sounds. 


* memsrom  ;  funebris  for  *funesris  ( cf.  funes-tus)  ;  muliebris  for 
*muliesris  {cf.  mulier-is  for  *  mulies-is  ;  §  98.  1). 

4.  For  the  disappearance  of  s  before  /,  m,  n ,  r,  b ,  d ,  g  in 
accented  syllables,  combined  with  lengthening  of  a  preceding 
short  vowel,  see  §  89.  In  unaccented  syllables  j-,  in  such  cases, 
was  lost  without  affecting  the  quantity  of  the  previous  vowel,  e.g. 
vidimus  for  *vi disinus ;  corpulentus  for  *  corposlentus ;  satin  for 
sdtisne  ;  potin  for  potisne. 

Consonant  Changes  at  fHE  End  of  Words. 

109.  1.  Single  consonants  are  usually  retained.  Final  s  does 
not  become  r  phonetically,  but  is  changed  after  the  analogy  of  the 
r  arising  by  rhotacism  in  the  oblique  cases ;  see  §  98.  4.  Final 
n  in  the  Nominative  Singular  of  ^-sterns,  disappeared  prior  to 
the  existence  of  Latin  as  a  separate  language,  e.g.  in  homo  for 
*hom-o{n )  ;  *caro{n),  etc.  After  a  long  vowel  or  a  diphthong, 
final  d  is  found  in  early  inscriptions,  but  disappeared  toward  the 
close  of  the  archaic  period.  Examples  are  :  Ablatives  Singular  of 
the  first  and  second  declension,  e.g.  praeda  for  praedad ;  Gnaivo 
for  Gnaivo d ;  also  certain  Adverbs  and  Prepositions,  e.g.  extra , 
supra ,  etc. ;  pro-  for  prod-,  which  latter  appears  in  prodesse.  So 
also  se-  for  sed-,  which  latter  appears  in  seditio. 

2.  Geminated  consonants  are  not  written  at  the  end  of  a  word  ; 
thus  as  for  *ass  {cf.  as-sis )  ;  so  fel  for  *fell,  i.e.  *fels  (§  106.  3)  ; 
far  for  *farr ,  i.e.  *fars  (§  106.  3)  ;  yet  it  is  probable  that  gemi¬ 
nated  consonants  were  spoken  in  these  words,  e.g.  hocc  (for  *hodc), 
not  hoc  ;  so  ess,  ‘thou  art far r,  fell,  ass. 

3.  Groups  of  two  consonants  at  the  end  of  a  word  are  sim¬ 
plified,  - 

a)  By  dropping  the  second,  e.g.  met  for  *me/t ;  lac  for  *lact; 
os  for  *ost;  cor  for  *cord.  In  fers,fert,  volt,  est,  the  final  conso¬ 
nant  is  retained  after  the  analogy  of  agis,  agit,  etc.  A  regular 
exception  to  the  general  principle  is  seen  in  final  ps  and  _v,  e.g. 
ops,  urbs  {bs  —  ps;  see  §  27)  ;  rex,  lex. 


109 


Con  so  nan  t  Cha  uges. 

b)  By  dropping  the  first,  e.g.  miles  for  *  mile  Is  ;  pes  for  *peds ; 
and  in  final  syllables  in  -ns,  as  agros  for  *agrbns ;  turns  for 
*turrins. 

4.  Final  -nts,  -mis,  -rts,  - rds ,  -Its  lost  the  t,  e.g.  mon(t)s, 
fron(d)s,  concor(Kd)s,  ar{t)s,  pul{l)s.  Final  -nx,  -lx,  -rx  are 
permitted,  e.g.  lanx,falx,  merx. 

w 

Disappearance  of  Syllables  by  Dissimilation. 

110.  By  a  natural  tendency,  when  two  syllables  began  with 
the  same  consonant,  the  first  syllable  was  often  dropped,  e.g.  d'ebi- 
litare  for  * debilita-tdre  ;  calamitbsus  for  *  calami  tatosus  ;  dentib  for 
*dentitio  ;  portorium  for  *portitorium  ;  veneficus  for  *verieniftcus  ; 
voluntarius  for  *  voluntatarius  ;  semodius  for  *  semi- mo  dins. 


f  'I  * 


CHAPTER  VII. 


INFLECTIONS. 


Declension  of  Nouns  and  Adjectives.1 

^-Sterns. 

111.  In  the  Indo-European  parent-speech  there  was  Ablaut 
(§  62)  in  the  suffix  of  ^-sterns.  The  weak  grade  of  a,  viz.  d 
(§  66)  occurred  in  the  Vocative  Singular,  and  also  in  the  Nomi¬ 
native  and  Accusative  Dual,  if  Brugmann’s  theory  be  correct ;  see 
§  120.  Elsewhere  the  suffix  remained  a. 


112.  Nominative  Singular.  —  1.  The  original  Nominative  Sin¬ 
gular  had  -a,  eg.  *portd.  But  -a  was  shortened  to  -a  before  the 
beginning  of  the  historical  period.  Possibly  this  shortening  was 
owing  to  the  influence  of  the  Accusative  Singular,  where  *-am 
regularly  became  shortened  to  -dm  (§  88.  2).  The  relation  of  the 
Nominative  to  the  Accusative  in  <?-stems,  ?/-stems,  and  /-stems 
might  easily  have  led  to  such  shortening.  Cf.  the  following  pro¬ 
portional  representations  : 


servos :  servom 
fructus  :  fructum  l  .* 
Ignis  :  tgnlm 


porta  :  portdm. 


Possibly  the  law  of  Breves  Breviantes  (§  88.  3),  by  which  *fuga , 
*fera ,  *  rota,  etc.,  regularly  became  fugd,ferd,  rota,  etc.,  led  to  the 


1  See,  in  general:  Brugmann,  Grundriss,  ii.  §§  184-404;  Lindsay,  Latin 
Language,  chaps,  v.  and  vi. ;  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik,  §§  75-88. 


1 10 


A- Stems. 


in 


extension  of  -a  for  -a  to  all  Nominatives.  Either  one  or  both  of 
these  influences  may  have  operated  to  produce  the  shortening  of 
final  d. 

2.  The  Latin  has  developed  a  number  of  Masculine  ^-sterns, 
e.g.  agricola,  ‘  farmer  ’  (probably  originally  ‘  farming  ’) ;  cf.  optid 
m.,  ‘  centurion’s  assistant/  from  optio,  f., ‘  choice,  selection.’  Other 
languages  exhibit  this  same  phenomenon,  eg.  Greek.  Thus  vea- 
vias,  ‘a  youth/  probably  goes  back  to  a  lost  *veavtd,  1  youth’ 
(abstract),  the  being  appended  to  indicate  the  Masculine  sig¬ 
nification  ;  so  further  many  Greek  Masculines  in  -as,  -r] s.  The 
mediaeval  Latin  word  bursa ,  /.,  meant  ‘  company  of  students/  but 
subsequently  became  individualized  to  mean  1  a  student  ’  (Ger¬ 
man  Bursche );  so  camerata,  f,  ‘roomful  of  comrades,’  later 
‘comrade’  (German  Kamerad).  Cf.  also  English  justice  (the 
quality)  and  justice  (‘magistrate’);  Spanish  justicia,  by  change 
of  gender,  also  covers  these  two  senses. 

113.  Genitive  Singular.  — The  ending  of  the  Genitive  Singular 
in  Indo-European  was  -j',  -es,  -os,  the  different  forms  representing 
Ablaut  (§  64.  a),  as  the  result  of  varying  accentual  conditions  of 
the  parent-speech.  In  the  case  of  ^-sterns,  the  case-ending  had 
already  united  with  the  a-  of  the  stem  producing  the  contraction 
-as.  This  appears  in  but  a  few  Latin  words.  It  is  preserved  in 
familids  in  the  combinations  pater  familids,  mater  familids,  etc., 
but  elsewhere  is  archaic,  eg.  vias  (Enn.  Ann.  421  Vahl l) ,  fortmias 
(Naevius). 

114.  The  Genitive  Singular  in  -ae  goes  back  to  an  earlier  -at 
(dissyllabic),  which  is  found  in  the  poets  as  late  as  the  Augustan 
Age.  This  termination  -at  apparently  arose  by  appending  the 
Genitive  termination  -i  of  the  ^-sterns  directly  to  the  stem,  eg. 
porta-i.  Whether  di  became  ai,  ae  by  regular  phonetic  processes, 
or  partly  under  the  influence  of  the  Dative  and  Locative  ending 
ae,  is  uncertain. 


1 12 


Inflections. 


115.  Dative  Singular. — The  Indo-European  case-ending  of 
the  Dative  Singular  was  -ai.  But  this  had  already  in  the  Indo- 
European  parent-speech  contracted  with  the  final  -a  of  the  stem 
producing  *-ai,  whence  successively  -ai,  -ae  (ante-vocalic  form ; 
§§  86  ;  8o.  i).  On  an  early  Dative  in  -a  see  also  §  86. 

116.  Accusative  Singular.  —  The  case-ending  was  -m  in  Indo- 
European.  This  in  combination  with  -a  of  the  stem  must  have 
given  a  primitive  Latin  *-am,  e.g.  *portam  ;  but  the  vowel  in  all 
final  syllables  in  m  had  probably  become  shortened  before  the 
beginning  of  the  historical  period  (§  88.  2). 

117.  Vocative  Singular. — There  was  no  case-ending  in  the 
Vocative  Singular  of  5-stems  in  the  Indo-European  parent-speech. 
The  Vocative  simply  had  the  weak  form  a  of  the  suffix  a  (§  in). 
Thus  *porta  would  represent  the  Indo-European  Vocative  Singu¬ 
lar  of  porta.  This  *porta  would  become  in  Latin  *porte  accord¬ 
ing  to  §  71.  1.  Hence  the  Vocative  in  actual  use  must  be  referred 
to  another  origin  ;  it  is  probably  simply  the  Nominative  transferred 
to  Vocative  uses.  The  same  is  true  of  most  Latin  Vocatives 
in  all  declensions. 

118.  Ablative  Singular. — The  Indo-European  case-ending  of 
the  Ablative  Singular  seems  to  have  been  d  with  some  preceding 
vowel,  i.e.  -ad,  -ed,  or  -od.  In  the  noun-declension,  this  case¬ 
ending  belonged  in  Indo-European  exclusively  to  the  5-stems  (see 
§  130).  In  Latin  it  was  transferred  to  5-stems  also,  combining 
with  the  final  -5  of  the  stem  to  produce  -55,  which  is  preserved 
in  early  inscriptions,  e.g.  praidad,  CIL.  i.  63,  64 ;  sententiad, 
CIL.  i.  196.  8,  17.  These  inscriptions  belong  to  the  period  of 
Plautus,  and  such  Ablatives  are  probably  to  be  recognized  in  the 
text  of  his  comedies.  Before  an  initial  consonant,  final  d  when 
following  a  long  vowel  regularly  disappeared.  Theoretically, 
therefore,  for  a  while  two  forms  must  have  existed,  —  an  ante- 


A- Stems. 


1 13 

consonantal  form,  praida ,  etc.,  and  an  ante-vocalic  form,  praidad ’ 
etc.  But  the  ante-vocalic  form  early  became  predominant, — 
probably  by  175  b.c. 

119.  Locative  Singular. — The  case-ending  of  the  Locative 
Singular  in  Indo-European  was  -t.  In  -5-stems  this  combined 
with  -5  of  the  stem  to  produce  -ai,  a  long  diphthong  (§  86), 
which  then  became  shortened  to  -ai,  later  -ae,  just  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Dative  (§  115). 

120.  Nominative  and  Vocative  Plural.  —  The  original  case¬ 
ending  of  the  Nominative  Plural  in  Indo-European  was  -es  for 
all  nouns.  In  the  case  of  5-stems,  this  -es  must  early  have 
contracted  with  final  -5  of  the  stem  to  *-as.  This  *-as  is  the 
regular  termination  of  the  Nominative  Plural  of  5-stems  in  the 
other  Italic  dialects,  —  Oscan,  Umbrian,  etc. ;  but  has  entirely  dis¬ 
appeared  in  Latin.1  Instead  of  -as,  we  have  the  termination  -ai, 
which  Brugmann  takes  as  an  original  Nominative  and  Accusative 
Dual  {cf.  Skr.  dupe  =  Indo-Eur.  *duv-ai)  that  has  taken  on  a  Plural 
function.  But  an  original  final  -ai  regularly  becomes  -i,  so  that  we 
should  expect  *porti  (for  *portai),  if  the  Nominative  Plural  were 
descended  from  this  Dual  form.  Final  -ai  in  Latin,  as  seen  in 
the  case  of  the  Genitive,  Locative,  and  Dative  Singular  (§§  114, 
1 15),  can  come  only  from  an  original  -ai,  as  the  ante-consonantal 
form  (§  86).  Hence  Latin  portae  (early  Latin  *po7'tai)  must  go 
back  to  an  original  *portai.  The  exact  nature  of  this  formation 
is  not  clear ;  but  Greek  x^PaL’  povo-ai,  etc.,  are  apparently  of  the 
same  origin.  The  Vocative  Plural  of  5-stems  is  simply  the  Nomi¬ 
native  employed  in  a  Vocative  function. 

121.  Genitive  Plural.  —  It  is  uncertain  what  form  the  case¬ 
ending  of  the  Genitive  Plural  had  in  Indo-European.  It  was 
either  -dm  or  -dm,  with  the  probabilities  in  favor  of  the  latter 


1  A  few  possible  vestiges  occur  in  the  early  language. 


Inflections. 


1 14 

(Brugmann,  Grundriss ,  ii.  p.  689).  With  the  -a  of  the  stem  this 
case-ending  must  have  early  contracted  to  *-am,  a  termination 
which  has  entirely  disappeared  from  all  the  Italic  dialects. 
Instead  of  *-am  the  Latin  has  - drum ,  a  termination  borrowed 
from  the  Genitive  Plural  of  the  Pronominal  Declension.  This 
-arum  is  developed  by  Rhotacism  (§  98.  1)  from  an  earlier  -asom, 
which  appears  in  Homeric  Greek  in  the  form  -a'wv,  e.g.  Oeawv  for 
Oc a(cr)(ov.  The  forms  ending  in  - um ,  which  sometimes  occur  in 
the  poets,  e.g.  caelicolum ,  Dardanidum ,  are  new  formations,  pos¬ 
sibly  in  imitation  of  the  0-stems,  possibly  after  the  analogy  of  such 
Genitives  as  Aeneadum  (from  Aeneades) . 

122.  Dative  and  Ablative  Plural.  —  The  Indo-European  par¬ 
ent-speech  had  no  special  form  for  the  Ablative  in  the  Plural. 
The  Ablative  Plural,  in  all  languages  in  which  that  case  occurs,  is 
identical  in  form  with  the  Dative.  The  genuine  Dative  and  Ab¬ 
lative  Plural  of  0-stems  in  -abus  (on  -bus,  see  §  144)  appears  only 
in  a  few  words  where  distinction  of  sex  is  important,  e.g.  equabus, 
filidbus,  libertabus,  etc.  Elsewhere  we  have  the  termination  -is, 
which  is  historically  an  instrumental  formation  borrowed  from  the 
0-stems.  The  termination  of  the  Instrumental  Plural  of  the 
0-stems  was  -ois  (see  §  133).  By  analogy  the  0-stems  created 
the  termination  - ais ,  which  regularly  became  -is  (see  §  80.  2). 

Some  advocate  a  Locative  origin  for  these  forms,  but  that  is 
less  probable. 

• 

123.  The  Accusative  Plural.  —  The  case-ending  of  the  Accusa¬ 
tive  Plural  imlndo- European  was  -ns.  The  n  disappeared  accord¬ 
ing  to  §  109.  3,  i.e.  port cis  for  *portans. 

0-  Stems. 

A.  Masculines  and  Feminines. 

124.  In  the  Indo-European  parent-speech  there  was  Ablaut 
(§  70)  in  the  suffix  of  0-stems.  Both  forms  of  the  strong  grade 


O- Stems. 


1 15 

occur,  e  and  0.  The  former  appears  in  the  Vocative  and  Loca¬ 
tive  (Genitive)  Singular,  and  partially  in  the  Ablative ;  the  latter 
in  the  remaining  cases. 

125.  Nominative  Singular.  —  This  is  formed  by  appending  -s 
to  the  stem,  e.g.  horto-s ,  later  hortus  (§  76.  1). 

« 

126.  Genitive  Singular.  —  The  so-called  Genitive  Singular  of 
<$>-stems  is  in  all  probability  a  Locative  that  has  taken  on  the  func¬ 
tion  of  the  Genitive.  The  suffix  took  the  form  e  (see  §  124) 
which,  with  the  Locative  case-ending  i,  gave  by  contraction  -ei, 
whence  regularly  -1.  The  Locative  function  is  still  apparent  in 
hunii ,  belli ,  do  mi,  heri  ;  also  in  town  names,  eg.  Corinthi. 

127.  Dative  Singular.  —  The  Indo-European  case-ending  -at 
early  combined  by  contraction  with  final  o  of  the  stem,  produc¬ 
ing  -oi.  Perhaps  we  have  this  in  Numasioi  in  our  earliest  Latin 
inscription,  CIL.  xiv.  4123.  In  the  historical  period  - oi  has 
become  o  (ante-consonantal  form,  §  86).  Cf.  Matiita  for 
Matutai  (§  86). 

128.  The  Accusative  Singular.  —  The  regular  ending  -m  is 
appended  to  the  stem  in  o ,  e.g.  horto-m ,  classical  ho r turn 

(§  76.  1). 

129.  Vocative  Singular.  —  The  stem  with  the  ^-suffix  serves  as 
a  Vocative,  e.g.  hort-e  ;  there  is  no  case-ending. 

130.  Ablative  Singular.  —  6?-stems  were  the  only  class  of 
nouns  in  Indo-European  that  originally  had  a  special  Ablative 
case-ending ;  other  nouns,  so  far  as  they  exhibit  a  special  ending 
for  this  case,  have  borrowed  it  from  ^-sterns.  The  form  of  this 
case-ending  is  d  with  a  preceding  vowel,  a,  e,  or  o,  i.e.  -ad,  -ed, 
or  bd.  As  the  case- ending  appears  only  in  contraction,  the  vowel 
Cannot  be  determined.  The  stem  appears  in  two  forms,  —  one  in 


Inflections. 


1 1 6 

o-  and  one  in  e-  (§  124),  e.g.  recto-  and  recte With  the  former 
of  these  the  case-ending  combined  to  produce  * fectdd ’  and  with 
the  latter  *  reefed.  Forms  with  d  appear  in  early  Latin,  eg.  popli- 
cod, facilunfed.  Later  (by  175  b.c.)  the  d  disappeared  ;  see  §118. 
The  forms  in  -d  became  appropriated  as  Adverbs,  —  fecte ,  facil- 
lutrfe ,  etc. 

• 

131.  Nominative  and  Vocative  Plural.  —  The  Nominative 
Plural  of  ^-sterns  in  Indo-European  was  originally  formed  by 
appending  the  case-ending  -es  to  the  stem,  giving  Indo-European 
-os.  This  termination  appears  in  the  other  Italic  dialects,  — 
Oscan,  Umbrian,  etc. ;  but  in  Latin  the  ^-sterns  have  borrowed 
the  termination  of  the  Pronominal  Declension,  viz.  -oi.  A  tradi¬ 
tion  of  this  appears  in  pilumnoe ,  poploe  cited  by  Festus  (p.  205, 
ed.  Muller) .  But  final  oi  regularly  became  i ,  the  classical  termi¬ 
nation,  eg.  horti.  In  Plautus  and  in  early  inscriptions,  we  find  also 
a  termination  -es,  eg.  magistres.  This  represents  a  borrowing 
from  the  /-stems  (see  §  154),  helped  doubtless  by  the  existence  of 
ques  as  a  ‘  by-form  ’  of  qui  (the  relative). 

132.  Genitive  Plural.  —  The  original  termination  was  -dm,  the 
result  of  contraction  of  final  o  of  the  stem  and  the  case-ending 
-om  or  -di7i  (§  12 1).  This  termination,  shortened  to  -o?n  (§  42.  1), 
appears  in  early  Latin,  e.g.  Romanom ,  and  in  the  form  -um  (§  76. 
1)  is  also  regular  in  certain  words  in  the  classical  period,  e.g. 
talentum,  inodium,  deum ,  etc.  ( Gr.  §  25.  6.  a).  The  usual  end¬ 
ing  -drum  is  of  secondary  origin,  and  is  formed  after  the  analogy 
of  the  Genitive  Plural  of  ^-sterns  (§  121). 

133.  Dative  and  Ablative  Plural.  —  The  so-called  Dative  and 
Ablative  Plural  is  in  reality  an  Instrumental.  The  Indo-European 
form  of  the  termination  was  -ois.  This  in  Latin  became  first  -ois 
(§  86),  and  then  -is  (§  81.  2),  the  classical  termination.  Cf. 
§  122. 


O-  Stems.  —  Consonant  Stems. 


ii  7 


134.  Accusative  Plural.  —  The  Indo-European  case-ending  was 
-ns.  Latin  * horto-ns  would  represent  the  primitive  formation  ; 
this  became  hortds ;  §  109.  3.  b. 

B.  Neuters. 

135.  In  the  Singular  these  present  no  special  peculiarity.  The 
Nominative,  Accusative,  and  Vocative  have  -m  as  case-ending, 
which  is  Indo-European. 

136.  The  Nominative,  Accusative,  and  Vocative  Plural  have  -a. 
This  ending  is  in  all  probability  identical  with  that  of  the  Nomi¬ 
native  Singular  of  -5-stems,  i.e.  certain  Feminine  collective  nouns 
came  to  be  felt  as  Plurals  and  were  so  used  syntactically.  Thus 
an  original  *juga  (Latin  jugd )  meaning  ‘  collection  of  yokes  ’  (cf. 
German  das  Gejoche )  came  to  be  felt  as  a  Plural  and  was  con¬ 
strued  accordingly.  The  use  of  the  Singular  in  Greek  with  a 
Neuter  Plural  subject,  apparently  dates  from  the  time  when  the 
Neuter  Plural  was  still  a  Feminine  Singular. 

Consonant  Stems. 

A.  Masculines  and  Feminines. 

The  original  case-endings  are  seen  to  best  advantage  in  the 
Mute  stems. 

137.  Nominative  Singular.  — The  case-ending  is  j,  which  com¬ 
bines  with  the  final  consonant  in  the  ways  enumerated  in  Gr. 
§§  32,  33,  e.g.  pfincep-s ;  miles ,  dux. 

138.  Genitive  Singular.  —  Of  the  three  forms  of  the  Indo- 
European  case-ending,  viz.  -s,  -es,  -os,  the  second,  -es,  is  the  one 
which  regularly  appears  appended  to  consonant  stems.  This 
becomes  -is  according  to  §  73.  2.  a),  eg.  ped-is,  militis.  Traces 
of  the  ending  -os  are  seen  in  early  Latin  nomin-us  (- us  for  -os 
acc.  to  §  76.  1),  Castor-us,  honor-us,  etc.,  —  perhaps  also  in  opus 
in  the  phrase  opus  est,  ‘it  is  necessary.’  Cf.  §  341.  2. 


ii  8 


Inflections. 


139.  Dative  Singular. — The  Indo-European  case-ending  was 
probably  -ai,  which  regularly  became  -i,  e.g.  ped-i  for  *ped-ai  ; 
militi  for  *militai. 

140.  Accusative  Singular.  —  The  Indo-European  case-ending 
was  - in ,  which,  after  a  consonant,  necessarily  became  sonant 
(§  io2.  i)  and  developed  as  eg.  pedem  for  *pedm  ;  principem 
for  *principm. 

141.  Ablative  Singular. — The  termination  -e  may  represent 
either  the  Indo-European  Instrumental  case-ending  -a  or  the 
Locative  -i.  Each  of  these  would  regularly  become  -e  in  Latin 
(§§  71-  i  i  75)-  Probably  we  should  recognize  the  presence  of 
both  formations  in  the  Latin  Ablative,  just  as  we  recognize  the 
presence  of  both  Instrumental  and  Locative  meanings  in  that  case. 

142.  Nominative  and  Vocative  Plural.  —  The  Indo-European 
case-ending  of  the  Nominative  Plural  was  -es,  seen  in  Greek  -e? 
{eg.  cf}vXaK-e<s) ,  and  still  preserved  in  early  Latin  in  a  few  Plautine 
forms,  eg.  canes ,  pedes ,  turbines.  The  ending  -es  which  appears 
regularly  in  all  nouns  of  so-called  Third  Declension  has  been  bor¬ 
rowed  from  the  7-stems ;  see  §  154. 

143.  Genitive  Plural. — The  regular  ending  mm  is  for  earlier 
-om.  Whether  this  was  -dm  or  -dm  in  Indo-European  is  uncer¬ 
tain  ;  see  §121. 

144.  Dative  and  Ablative  Plural. — The  Indo-European  end¬ 
ing  was  - bhos ,  which  became  -bos  (§  97.  1.  b).  This  appears 
once  or  twice  in  early  Latin,  but  soon  became  -bus  (§  76.  1). 
The  i  of  -ibus,  the  regular  termination  of  all  consonant  stems, 
is  borrowed  from  the  /-stems;  §  156. 

145.  Accusative  Plural. — The  Indo-European  ending  -ns  be¬ 
came  -ns  (§  102.  1)  after  a  consonant.  This  regularly  became 
*-ens,  whence  -es ;  §  109.  3.  b. 


Consonant  Stems. 


1 19 


B.  Neuters. 

146.  The  Nominative  and  Accusative  Singular  are  formed  with¬ 
out  case-ending.  For  the  -a  of  the  Nominative  and  Accusative 
Plural,  see  §  136. 

Stem-Formation  of  Consonant  Stems. 

147.  Several  formative  suffixes  originally  showed  Ablaut  (§§  62, 
70).  Thus : 

1.  5-Stems.  —  Stems  formed  with  the  suffix  -os  {-us),  e.g. 
gen-us,  had  in  certain  cases  the  suffix  -es- ;  thus  originally  Nom. 
*gen-os,  Gen.  *gen-es-es,  Dat.  *gen-es-ai,  later  gen-us,  gen-er-is. 
gen-er-i  (§  98.  1).  In  some  words  the  -os-  suffix  of  the  Nomina¬ 
tive  invaded  the  oblique  cases,  eg.  temp-us,  Gen.  temp-oi'-is  (for 
*temp-os-es).  Yet  the  -es-  suffix  appears  in  the  adverbs  temp-er-i , 
temp-er-e.  Cf.  also  temp-es-tas,  temp-es-tivus,  where  the  original 
-es-  has  been  protected  by  the  following  t.  Pignus,  which  is  ordi¬ 
narily  declined  pigjius,  pignoris ,  had  the  -es-  suffix  in  early  Latin, 
eg. pigneri  (Plautus). 

2.  Nasal  Stems. — The  suffixes  of  many  nasal  stems  originally 
had  Ablaut  (§§  62,  70).  Thus  : 

a)  The  suffix  -on-  (lengthened  from  -on-,  strong  grade;  §62) 
had  another  strong  form,  -en-,  and  a  weak  one,  -n-.  Most  words 
have  lost  the  -n-  grade,  and  show  only  -on-  or  -en-,  eg.  umb-o  for 
umb-o{n)  (§  109.  1),  Gen.  umb-dn-is ,  etc.,  ord-o{n ),  ord-in-is 
(for  *ord-en-is,  §  73.  2),  turb-o{n),  turb-in-is.  Car-o{n),  Gen. 
car-n-is ,  shows  a  trace  of  the  weak  grade  of  the  suffix. 

b)  The  suffix  -io{n)-  had  another  form  of  the  strong  grade,  viz. 
-ien-,  and  a  weak  grade  -in-.  The  weak  grade  appears  in  the 
other  Italic  languages,  Oscan,  Umbrian,  etc.,  but  not  in  Latin, 
where  we  have  only  -ion,  e.g.  actio {n ),  acti-on-is. 

c)  The  suffix  -mo(n)  had  alsa  the  grades  -men-  and  -mn-. 
Sometimes  the  -men-  grade  appears  in  the  oblique  cases,  e.g. 


120 


Inflections. 


ho-mo(n ),  ho-min-is,  etc.;  sometimes  the  -mo(n)  of  the  Nomina¬ 
tive  appears  throughout,  e.g.  sermb ,  sermonis . 

d)  Neuters  in  -men  show  two  forms  of  the  suffix.  In  the 
Nominative  -men  stands  for  -mn  (§  102.  1),  eg.  no-men  for 
*nd-mn.  In  the  oblique  cases  min-  is  for  men-,  e.g.  no-min-is  for 
* no-men-es  (§  73.  2). 

3.  //-Stems. —  Some  of  these  originally  had  Ablaut  in  the 
suffix.  Thus : 

a)  Nouns  of  relationship  in  -ter,  eg.  pater,  mater,  f rater. 
These  originally  had  three  forms  of  the  suffix,  viz.  -ter-,  fer,  and 
-tr-  (weak  form  ;  §  62).  The  Greek  has  clung  quite  closely  to 
the  original  declension,  Tra-Tr/p,  7ra -rp-o's,  7ra-rep-a.  In  Latin  the 
-tr-  form  of  the  suffix  has  gained  the  supremacy  in  the  oblique 
cases;  in  the  Nominative,  -ter  represents  earlier  *-ter  (§  88.  2). 

b)  Nouns  of  agency  in  -tor  originally  had  three  forms  of  the 
suffix,  viz.  -tor-,  -tor-,  -tr-.  In  Latin  these  have  all  practically 
been  reduced  to  one,  -tor  (Nominative  -tor  being  for  earlier  *-tbr; 
§  88.  2).  The  weak  grade  -tr-,  however,  appears  in  the  corre¬ 
sponding  feminine  nouns  of  agency,  eg.  vic-tr-ix,  gene-tr-ix,  etc. 

/-Stems. 

A.  Masculine  and  Feminine  z-Stems. 

148.  These  originally  had  Ablaut  (§§  62  ;  70)  in  the  suffix. 
The  strong  form  of  the  suffix  was  -ei-,  the  weak  form  -z-. 

Many  original  /-stems  have  passed  over  in  Latin  into  the  -io^ri) 
class  (§  147.  2.  b).  Examples  are  statio  (earlier  *statis ;  cf.  Gr. 
crrdcrts  for  ^ara-rt?)  ;  -ventio  (earlier  * -vends ;  cf.  Gr.  fiao-is  for 
*/3ulti<;)  ;  -tentio  (earlier  -tends;  cf.  Gr.  rao-is  for  *rarts). 

149.  Nominative  Singular. — This  is  regularly  formed  by  ap¬ 
pending  -J-,  eg.  igni-s,  turri-s.  Several  nouns  have  lost  the  i  before 
s  by  Syncope  (§  92),  eg.  pars  for  *part-(i)s  (cf.  parti m)  ;  gens  for 
*gent-(i)s;  mens  for  *ment-(i)s.  Gr.  §  38.  3. 


w 

I -Stems. 


1 2  I 


150.  Genitive  Singular.  —  The  Indo-European  termination 
seems  to  have  been  -eis,  i.e.  ei  (strong  form  of  suffix)  +  -s,  weak 
grade  of  Genitive  case-ending  (§  138).  But  this  termination  -eis, 
while  preserved  in  Oscan  and  Umbrian,  has  disappeared  in  Latin. 
The  termination  -is  is  borrowed  from  Consonant  stems. 

151.  Dative  Singular. — The  Indo-European  case-ending  -ai 
regularly  became  -i  as  in  consonant  stems,  and  this  -i  contracted 
with  the  i  of  the  stem,  e.g.  turn  for  *turri-i. 

152.  Accusative  Singular. — The  regular  ending  -m  is  appended 
to  the  stem,  e.g.  turri-m.  The  termination  -em  (borrowed  from 
the  Consonant  stems)  has,  however,  largely  displaced  primitive 
-im.  See  Gr.  §  37. 

153.  Ablative  Singular. — There  was  no  special  form  for  the 
Ablative  Singular  of  z-stems  in  Indo-European.  The  Latin,  how¬ 
ever,  formed  an  Ablative  in  -d,  e.g.  turrid ,  after  the  analogy  of 
<?-stems  ( hortos  :  ho?'to7n  :  hortbd : :  turris :  turrim  :  turrid).  These 
-zZ-forms,  however,  are  attested  by  only  scanty  examples ;  the  d 
early  disappeared  (§  109.  1),  leaving  the  termination  -i. 

154.  Nominative  Plural.  —  The  suffix  of  the  Nominative  Plural 
took  the  form  -ei-  (§  148).  Thus  the  primitive  formation  would 
be  represented  by  *turr-ei-es.  The  i  between  vowels  first  became 
j,  and  then  regularly  disappeared.  The  resulting  *turrees  then 
became  turres  by  contraction.  .  Cf.  in  Greek  7roAas  (a  =  e)  for 

*7ro\eL-es. 

155.  Genitive  Plural. — The  ending  -urn  is  appended  to  the 
stem  ending  in  the  z-suffix,  e.g.  turri-um. 

156.  Dative  and  Ablative  Plural. — The  Indo-European  end¬ 
ing  -bhos  is  appended  to  the  stem,  ending  in  the  z-suffix,  e.g.  tur- 
ri-bus.  On  -bus  for  *-bhos ,  see  §§  97.  1.  b;  76.  1. 


122 


Inflections. 


157.  Accusative  Plural.  —  The  termination  was  -ns ;  hence 
originally  turrins ,  whence  turns  (§  109.  3.  b).  The  termination 
-es,  which  is  often  used  instead  of  -is,  is  borrowed  from  the  Con¬ 
sonant  stems. 

B.  Neuter  /-SteiTs. 

158.  1.  These  changed  the  final  -i  to  -e  by  a  regular  law 
(§  75).  Stems  of  more  than  two  syllables  then  dropped  the  -e 
thus  developed,  while  dissyllabic  stems  retained  it,  e.g.  calcar(e), 
animate)  ;  but  jnare,  rete. 

2.  The  case-endings  of  Neuter  /-stems  are  in  general  the  same 
as  for  Masculines  and  Feminines.  On  the  -a  (i.e.  i-a)  of  the 
Nominative  and  Accusative  Plural,  see  §  136. 

Consonant  Stems  that  have  partially  adapted  themselves  to  the 

Inflection  of  /-Stems. 

159.  As  stated  in  the  Grammar,  §  40,  the  adaptation  is  prac¬ 
tically  confined  to  the  Plural,  viz.  the  Genitive  and  Accusative, 
where  -ium  and  -is  take  the  place  of  the  normal  -um  and  -es. 
Several  distinct  groups  of  words  belong  here  : 

1.  One  of  the  most  important  classes  consists  of  nouns  in  -es, 
e.g.  aedes,  nudes,  etc.  These  seem  to  have  been  originally  Neuters 
with  the  suffix  -os-,  -es-  (§  147.  1).  Thus  aedes  is  the  Greek 
at Oos ;  sedes  is  the  Gr.  e'Sos,  etc.  What  has  led  to  the  adaptation 
of  these  words  to  the  inflection  of  /-stems  in  the  Genitive  and 
Accusative  Plural  is  not  certain ;  but  the  fact  that  no  stems  of 
this  class  ever  show  -im  in  the  Accusative  Singular  or  -/  in  the 
Ablative  Singular,1  whereas  regular  /-stems  in  -is  frequently  show 
these  endings,  makes  it  impossible  to  regard  nouns  in  -es,  Gen. 
-is,  as  actual  /-stems. 

2.  Nouns  in  -fas,  Gen.  -tatis,  may  possibly  represent  /-stems, 
i.e.  civitdt-i- ;  yet  the  absence  of  -im  and  -/-  forms  in  the  Accusa¬ 
tive  and  Ablative  Singular  is  against  this.  Cf.  1  above. 

1  Neue  ( Formenlehre  i.2  235)  gives  one  or  two  extremely  doubtful  exam¬ 

ples  of  -i  from  Mss. 


123 


U- Stems. 


v_/ 

{/-Stems. 

A.  Masculine  and  Feminine  2/ -Stems. 

160.  Like  the  2-stems,  the  22-stems  had  a  suffix  which  appeared 
in  two  forms,  viz.  -eu-  and  -u-.  The  former  was  strong ;  the 
latter  weak.  See  §§  64.  c ;  70. 

161.  Nominative  Singular. — The  Nominative  Singular  ap¬ 
pends  -i1,  eg. fructu-s. 

162.  Genitive  Singular. — The  Genitive  Singular  had  the 
strong  form  of  the  suffix,  viz.  -eu-.  To  this  was  added  the  Geni¬ 
tive  case-ending  in  its  weakest  form,  viz.  -s  (§  138),  thus  *fruct- 
eu-s,  whence  regularly  fructus  (§  85).  Early  Latin  also  shows 
two  other  formations,  viz.  in  -uis  and  -uos,  e.g.  senatu-is  and 
senatu-os.  These  represent  the  other  forms  of  the  Genitive  case¬ 
ending. 

The  termination  -us  cannot  be  explained  as  the  result  of  con¬ 
traction  from  either  -uis  or  -uos.  Neither  ui  nor  uo  contracts  to  u. 

In  Plautus  and  Terence  22-stems  largely  follow  the  analogy  of 
<?-stems  and  form  the  Genitive  Singular  in  -i,  eg.  senati. 

163.  Dative  Singular. — The  Indo-European  case-ending  -ai 
appended  to  the  stem  regularly  gives  -i,  eg.  fructu-i.  The  Dative 
in  -u  is  not  formed  from  that  in  -ui  by  contraction ;  for  -ui  does 
not  contract  to  it.  The  forms  in  u  are  either  Instrumentals  or 
Locatives.  Thus  fructu  may  be  for  *fructu-e  by  contraction. 
On  e  as  the  representative  of  an  original  -a  (Instrumental  case¬ 
ending),  see  §  14 1.  If  Locative,  fructu  is  for  *fructeu,  a  peculiar 
sufifixless  formation. 

164.  Accusative  Singular.  — The  regular  ending  -m  is  ap¬ 
pended,  eg.  fructu-  in . 

165.  Ablative  Singular. — The  earliest  Latin  formation  had 
- d ,  e.g.  frucfud.  This,  however,  was  not  inherited  from  the  Indo- 


124 


Inflections. 


European,  but  was  a  new  formation,  specifically  Latin.  See 
§  153.  The  -d  was  soon  dropped,  giving  f rue  tu. 

166.  Nominative  Plural. — The  original  formation  would  have 
been  in  *-eu-es,  i.e.  the  strong  form  of  the  suffix  (§  160)+ the 
Nominative  case- ending  -es ;  *- eu-es  would  regularly  have  become 
*-u-is,  which  would  have  remained  uncontracted.  The  regular 
Nominative  Plural  in  -us  must,  therefore,  be  referred  to  another 
origin  ;  it  is  probably  an  Accusative  that  has  taken  on  a  Nomina¬ 
tive  function.  Cf.  early  Latin  Nominatives  in  -is  from  2-stems, 
which  are  likewise  Accusatives  in  Nominative  function. 

167.  Genitive  Plural.  — Fructu-um ,  etc .,  are  for  earlier fructu-om. 
On  - om ,  see  §121. 

168.  Dative  and  Ablative  Plural.  — The  regular  Indo-European 

case-ending  *-bhos  became  Latin  -bus  (§97.  1.  b),  and  was  regu¬ 
larly  appended  to  the  stem  in  u -,  e.g.  fructu-bus.  Later,  either 
owing  to  the  influence  of  Consonant  and  2-stems,  or  to  the  ten¬ 
dency  of  u  to  become  2  before  labials  (§  6.  2),  -ubus  often  became 
-ibus.  Tribubus  never  becomes  *  tribibus,  —  for  what  reason,  is 
not  clear. 

169.  Accusative  Plural. — The  primitive  formation  would  be 
represented  by  *fructu-ns  (case-ending  -ns),  whence  regularly 
fructus ;  §  109.  3.  b. 


B.  Neuter  zz-Stems. 

170.  These  are  not  numerous  and  present  few  peculiarities. 
The  long  u  of  genu  and  cornu  has  been  explained  as  an  original 
dual  formation,  —  *  two  knees,’  etc. 

/  and  /7-Stems. 

171.  1.  The  only  z-stem  in  Latin  is  vis .  The  terminations  of 
the  Singular  follow  those  of  2-stems ;  z  has  probably  been  short¬ 
ened  in  the  Genitive,  though  the  actual  quantity  cannot  be 


E- Stems. 


'i  25 


j  • 

proved.  The  Accusative  vim  for  *vim  is  regular;  §  88.  2.  In 
the  Plural  viids ,  virium ,  etc.,  result  from  the  conception  of  the 
stem  as  vis-,  whence  *vis-es,  vires,  etc.;  §  98.  1.  Cf.  the  early 
Latin  Plural,  spires  from  spe-s,  an  Astern. 

2.  ^7-stems  are  represented  by  sus  and  grits,  both  of  which  take 
the  endings  of  consonant-stems,  shortening  u  regularly  to  u  before 
vowels.  Subus  is  not  a  contraction  of  suibus,  but  represents 
another  formation. 

£-Stems. 

172.  £-stems  are  represented  by  sfies,  quies ,  and  nouns  in  -ies, 
e.g.  rabies,  acies,  facies,  species,  etc.  The  suffix  originally  had 
Ablaut  (§  70)  in  Indo-European,  appearing  in  the  forms  -i- 
and  -ie- ;  but  Latin  has  lost  all  traces  of  the  z-suffix  and  has  -ie 
throughout.  On  res  and  dies,  which  were  originally  diphthong- 
stems,  see  §  180. 

172a.  Nominative  Singular.  —  The  case-ending  is  -.r  as  else¬ 
where. 

173.  Genitive  Singular.  —  The  -i  of  -ei  is  probably  borrowed 
from  ^-sterns,  precisely  as  in  case  of  the  ending  -ai  of  ^-sterns  ; 
subsequently  e  was  shortened  before  -i,  when  a  consonant  pre¬ 
ceded  the  termination,  e.g.  fidei,  spei,  rei,  ptebei.  The  ending  -e, 
eg.  acie,  die  (in  such  expressions  as  quinti  die,  postridie,  pridii, 
etc.)  is  not  Genitive,  but  Locative.  The  original  formation  was 
*diei  (Locative  ending  -i).  But  under  certain  conditions  this 
diphthong  -ei  became  -e  (cf.  §  86)  ;  hence  dii  for  *dteu 

174.  Dative  Singular.  —  The  genuine  Dative  formation  is  seen 
in  aciei  for  *acie-ai  (§  80.  2).  The  Locative  in  -e  serves  not  only 
as  Genitive  (§  173),  but  sometimes  also  as  Dative,  eg.  fide,  re. 

174a.  Accusative  Singular.  —  This  is  formed  regularly  by  ap¬ 
pending  the  case-ending  -m,  before  which  e  is  regularly  shortened 
(§  88.  2),  eg.  aciein  for  earlier  *aciem. 


126 


Inflections. 


175.  Ablative  Singular.  —  No  traces  of  forms  with  -d  are 
found,  though  it  is  likely  that  acie ,  etc.,  are  for  an  earlier  *  acted, 
etc.  This  formation  would  be  secondary,  after  the  analogy  of  the 
Ablative  Singular  of  <?-stems. 

176.  Nominative  Plural.  —  The  Nominative  case-ending  -es 
(see  §  142)  combines  by  contraction  with  the  stem,  e.g.  acies 
for  *acie-es. 

177.  Genitive  Plural. — The  termination  -erum  is  after  the 
analogy  of  -drum  of  the  ^-sterns  and  -drum  of  the  <?-stems. 

178.  Dative  and  Ablative  Plural.  —  The  ending  -bus,  for  Indo- 
European  -bhos  (§  97.  1.  b),  is  appended  directly  to  the  stem. 

179.  Accusative  Plural.  —  The  primitive  Latin  formation  would 
be  represented  by  *aciens,  whence  acies  (§  109.  3.  b). 

Stems  ending  in  a  Diphthong. 

180.  1.  Res,  originally  a  diphthongal  stem,  viz.  *reis,  had 
become  res  in  the  Indo-European  period. 

2.  The  Nominative  Singular  of  navis  was  originally  *naus. 
This  form  disappeared  ;  navis  is  a  new  formation  after  the  Geni¬ 
tive  navis ,  Dative  navi. 

3.  Bos  is  probably  not  a  genuine  Latin  word,  but  is  borrowed 
from  one  of  the  Italic  dialects  (Oscan?)  ;  o  represents  earlier  ou. 

4.  The  stem  of  Ju^piter)  was,  in  Indo-European,  *Djev- . 
Initial  ^‘regularly  became j  (§  104.  1.  a)  ;  hence  *Djev-  became 
*Jev~,  and  further  Jov-  (§  73.  3).  From  this  stem  are  formed 
the  oblique  cases  Jov-is,  Jov-i ,  Jov-em.  The  Vocative  consisted 
of  the  simple  stem,  namely  *Jev,  which  became  *Jeu,  Ju-  (§  85). 
It  is  this  last  which  combined  with  -piter  ( i.e .  pater ,  §  73.  2) 
gives  Jupiter,  really  a  Vocative,  but  used  as  a  Nominative  as  well. 

The  original  Nominative  was  *Djeus,  with  a  ‘  by-form  ’  *Dijdus. 
From  the  latter  came  Dies  (§86)  seen  in  the  archaic  Diispiter , 
which  is  the  real  Nominative  corresponding  to  Jupiter.  The  same 


Formation  of  the  Comparative  and  Superlative.  127 

dies  as  a  common  noun,  ‘  day,’  passed  over  into  the  inflection  of 
the  ^-sterns. 

Formation  of  the  Comparative  and  Superlative.1 

181.  The  Comparative. — The  regular  Comparative  Suffix  in 
Latin  was  -ios-,  with  -ies-  as  another  form  of  the  strong  grade,  and 
-is-  as  weak  grade  (§  62).  But  -ios-  alone  survived  in  Latin.  In 
the  Nominative  Masculine  and  Feminine  the  original  formation 
was  -ios.  In  the  oblique  cases  ^  became  r  (§  98.  1),  e.g.  melidris 
for  *meliosis,  and  the  r  was  subsequently  transferred  by  analogy  to 
the  Nominative.  The  Neuter  kept  j,  changing  0  to  u  (§  76.  1), 
e.g.  melius.  Minus  is  not  for  *min-ios  (which  would  be  impossi¬ 
ble  in  Latin),  but  was  probably  originally  a  Noun,  minus ,  Gen. 
*mineris.  This  became  an  Adjective  and  developed  a  Masculine 
minor ,  after  the  analogy  of  other  Comparatives. 

The  Indo-European  parent-speech  had  another  suffix,  which  in 
some  languages  developed  Comparative  force,  viz.  -tero-,  -tera-, 
eg.  Greek  KaKw-repos.  But  in  Latin  this  suffix  retained  its  primi¬ 
tive  force  of  ‘  having  a  relation  to,’  1  connected  with,’  e.g.  ex-terus , 
lit.  ‘  having  a  relation  to  the  outside,  outer  ’ ;  *interus,  posterns , 
citer,  etc.  These  were  felt  as  Positives  and  took  the  regular  suffix 
-ior-  to  denote  Comparative  relation. 

182.  The  Superlative.  —  We  have  three  Superlative  suffixes  in 
Latin  : 

1.  -7710-  seen  in  su77i-77tus  for  *sup-mus  (§  106.  2)  ;  pri-mus ; 
binnna  *  winter,’  lit.  ‘shortest  day,’  for  *brev-ma  ( brev-is )  ;  pessi- 
77ius  ;  also  in  extre-mus,  posti'e-mus,  supre-mus  ;  pluri-mus ,  proxi- 
77ius  (for  *p7'oqu(i)s-i77ius) . 

2.  -tu7nus,  -twins  (§  6.  2),  seen  in  ci-timus,  ex-timus,  in-twius , 
pos-tu7nus,  ul- twins,  op-timus,  for  op(i) twins ,  from  ops  (§  92)  ; 

1  See  Lindsay,  Latin  Language ,  p.  404;  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik, 

§  92. 


128 


Inflections. 


earlier  citumus,  etc.  This  suffix  originally  had  much  the  same 
meaning  as  tero -,  tera -  (see  §  181),  and  still  retains  its  primitive 

N 

force  in  several  words,  e.g.  legi-timus ;  fini-timus ,  etc. 

3.  The  suffix  -issimus  is  of  uncertain  origin.  It  can  hardly  be 
for  -istimus,  a  mingling  of  -isto-  (seen  in  the  Greek  Superlative 
ending  -«rros)  and  -mus ;  for  -istimus  could  not  become  -issimus. 
It  is  more  likely  that  -issimus  is  for  *isti-timus.  By  syncope  this 
would  become  *-isttimus,  whence  -issimus  (§  108.  1).  Acerrimus 
is  probably  for  an  original  *hcr-is-imos,  whence  by  Syncope  (§  92) 
*acrsimos,  *acersimos  (§  100.3),  acerrimus  (§  106.4).  Similarly 
facillimus  is  for  *facil-is-imos,  *fa cilsim os,  facillim us  (§  106.  3)  ; 
-is-,  in  the  forms  assumed  as  original,  represents  the  weak  form  of 
the  Comparative  suffix  (§  181).  Cf.  Brugmann,  Grundriss ,  ii.  p. 
158. 

4.  On  the  quantity  of  Tin  - issimus ,  see  §  43. 

Numerals.1 

Cardinals. 

183.  1.  Unus  is  for  earlier  oinos ;  §  81.  1.  (cf.  Greek  oLvrj,  ‘  the 
one-spot’  on  dice).  German  and  English  one  are  the  same 
word  ;  Greek  ets  is  not  related. 

2.  Duo  is  for  earlier  ^ duo  according  to  §  SS.  3  ^  cf.  (_ireek  Siko. 
The  formation  was  Dual. 

3.  Tres.  The  stem  shows  Ablaut  (§  64.  c),  strong  grade  trei-, 
weak  grade  tri- .  The  former  stem  originally  appeared  in  the 
Nominative,  *trei-es,  whence  *tre-es,  tres.  The  other  cases  have 
tri-,  viz.  tri-urn ,  tri-bus,  tri-a,  tris  (for  *tri-ns ;  §  109.  3). 

4.  Quattuor.  The  Indo-European  form  from  which  quattuor 
is  descended  was  probably  * quetvbres ;  but  the  Latin  form  early 
lost  its  inflection,  after  the  analogy  of  the  other  indeclinable 
numerals;  -^regularly  became  or ;  §  88.  3.  The  change  of  the 


1  See  Brugmann,  Grundriss ,  ii.  §§  164-181;  Lindsay,  Latin  Language,  p. 
408  ff. ;  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik ,  §  91. 


Numerals. 


129 


primitive  e  to  a ,  and  the  doubling  of  the  t  cannot  be  referred  to 
any  recognized  law.  The  change  of  v  to  u  is  perfectly  natural ; 

cf.  §  16.  1./. 

\ 

5.  Quinque.  The  Indo-European  form  was  *penque;  cf.  Skrt. 
panqa ,  Greek  -n-evre.  Initial  qu-  in  Latin  is  the  result  of  assimila¬ 
tion  of  the  first  syllable  to  the  second  ;  cf.  bi-bo  for  Indo-European 
* pi-bo  (Skrt.  pibami) .  The  change  of  e  to  i  is  in  accordance  with 
§  73.  2.  b.  The  lengthening  of  i  awaits  satisfactory  explanation. 

6.  Sex.  The  Indo-European  form  was  apparently  *sveks ;  on 
s-  for  sv,  see  §  104.  2.  b).  Cf.  Greek  If  Doric  (for  o-pif). 

7.  Septem.  The  Indo-European  form  was  *septn,  which  would 
have  regularly  developed  in  Latin  as  *septen  (§  102.  1  ;  cf.  Eng. 
sev-en  ;  German  sieb-en )  ;  the  final  -em  is  the  result  of  association 
with  dec-em  and  novem. 

8.  Octo  is  descended  from  an  Indo-European  *octo.  The  form 
was  a  Dual  (‘two  fours  ’?). 

9.  Novem.  The  Indo-European  form  was  *nevn,  which  in 
Latin  would  regularly  have  appeared  as  *noven  (§  102.  1  ;  cf.  Eng. 
ni-ne  ;  German  neu-ni)  ;  -em  for  -en  is  due  to  the  following  dec-em. 

10.  Decern  is  for  Indo-European  *decm ;  §  102.  1. 

11. '  ‘Eleven’  to  ‘Nineteen.’  These  are  regularly  formed  by 

composition,  —  unde  cun,  tredecim ,  etc.  On  -im  for  -em,  see  § 
73.  2.  For  tredecim  we  should  expect  *  tredecim  according  to 
§  89.  The  e  remains  unexplained.  ‘  Eighteen  ’  and  ‘  Nineteen  ’ 
were  usually  expressed  by  duodeviginti ,  undeviginti.  , 

12.  VIgintl.  The  Indo-European  form  was  *vi-k;nfi,  in  which 
vi,  ‘  two,’  is  for  *dvi,  an  original  Neuter  Dual,  from  the  root  *du- ; 
- kinti ,  whence  in  Latin  *-genti,  -ginti  (§  102.  1)  was  also  Dual,  in 
the  sense  of  ‘  tens.’  The  change  of  k  to  g  is  peculiar,  though  not 
unexampled  ;  cf.  dig-itus  for  *dic-itus  (from  root  die-  1  point  ’). 

13.  ‘Thirty’  to  ‘Ninety.’  These  all  end  in  -ginta,  which  in 
Indo-European  was  *-konta  ( cf.  Gr.  TpiaKovra,  reacapaKovra,  etc .), 
a  Neuter  Plural  meaning  ‘tens’  ;  *-konta  shows  the  strong  grade 
of  the  root  whose  weak  grade  *knt-  lies  at  the  basis  of  viginfi  (see 


130 


Inflections. 


above)  ;  -ginta  for  *-gonta  is  due  to  the  influence  of  viginfi .  On 
g  for  c,  see  above.  Tri-  in  triginta  is  probably  a  Nominative 
Plural  Neuter.  The  -a  in  quadra -,  quinqua -,  sexd-  is  secondary. 
Its  precise  origin  is  uncertain.  As  regards  quad?'d-,  it  is  best  to 
disconnect  it  entirely  from  quattuor.  It  is  probably  an  indepen¬ 
dent  word. 

14.  Centum  is  for  an  Indo-European  *cntdm,  whence  the  Latin 
form  by  regular  phonetic  process  ;  §  102.  1.  Eng.  hund-  in  hund¬ 
red  is  the  same  word.  Gr.  k-Karov  has  prefixed  e-,  for  eV,  ‘  one.’ 

15.  The  Hundreds  present  few  difficulties.  On  tre-cenfi ,  see 
10  above.  Quadringenti ,  octingenti  (for  quattuor -,  odd-)  have 
borrowed  the  -mg-  from  quingenti  (for  * quinq-genti ;  §  105.  1) 
and  septingenfi  (for  * septem-gentT) ,  where  -mg-  developed  regu¬ 
larly.  Sescenfi  is  for  sex-cenfi ,  according  to  §  105.  1.  Sexcenti, 
which  also  occurs,  is  the  result  of  ‘  Re-composition  ’ ;  §  87.  3.  On 
g  for  c  in  -genfi,  see  above,  11. 

16.  Mille.  —  The  most  probable  etymology  of  this  word  is  that 
which  connects  it  with  Greek  gt\ia,  Doric  grjXia  (for  *gia\id), 
‘  thousand.’  The  Indo-European  form  of  this  was  *ghestia,  which 
in  Latin  would  regularly  develop  as  *helia  (§§  89  ;  97.  3.  A.),  and, 
by  assimilation  (§  90),  *  Julia.  The  initial  m  would  represent 
sjn-,  weak  form  of  the  root  sem-,  ‘  one,’  seen  in  sem-per,  sem-el, 
sim-plex ,  sin-guli.  Cf.  also  Greek  g-ta  for  *(cr)/xta.  Hence  orig¬ 
inally  in  Latin  *sm(h)ilia,  ‘one  thousand.’  On  m  for  initial  sm-, 
see  §  104.  1.  b). 

Ordinals. 

184.  1.  Primus  for  *pris-mos  is  a  Superlative  formation;  §  89. 

2.  Secundus  is  from  sequor,  hence  originally  :  ‘the  following.’ 

3.  Tertius  is  not  clear  in  its  relation  to  tres. 

4.  Quartus,  Quintus,  Sextus  are  formed  from  the  respective 
cardinals  by  adding  -tus. 

5.  Septimus,  Decimus  are  probably  for  an  original  *septni-mos, 
* decin-mos ;  see  §  102.  1. 


Numerals. 


I3i 


6.  Octavus  is  for  an  earlier  *oc tovus. 

7.  Ndnus  is  for  *noven-os ;  cf.  §  183.  9. 

« 

8.  VIcesimus  and  the  other  tens  are  formed  with  the  suffix 
-timo-,  i.e  vicesimus  for  *vicent-timos ;  §  108.  1. 

9.  Centesimus  and  the  Hundreds.  —  Inasmuch  as  the  element 
-esunus  was  common  to  all  the  tens,  it  came  to  be  felt  as  an  inde¬ 
pendent  ordinal  suffix,  and  was  appended  to  the  stems  of  the  hun¬ 
dreds,  centum ,  ducenfi ,  etc.  The  suffix  -timo-  would  have  given 
*  centum- timus,  or  else  *cesimus  for  *  cent- timus. 

10.  Millesimals  follows  the  analogy  of  the  hundreds. 

Distributives. 

185.  1.  Singuli,  from  the  stem  sm-klo -,  shows  the  weak  form  of 
the  root  sem -,  1  one/  seen  in  sem-el \  1  once/  sim-plex ,  sent- per ,  etc. 

2.  The  other  Distributives  are  formed  with  the  suffix  - no -,  e.g. 
bim  for  *bis-ni ;  trim  for  *tris-ni.  Beginning  with  septeni ,  the 
Distributives  are  formed  by  the  suffix  -'em,  which  is  borrowed 
from  sem  (for  *secs-ni ;  §§  105.  1  ;  89).  The  cardinal  form  to 
which  this  suffix  is  added,  usually  loses  its  final  syllable,  sometimes 
the  last  two  syllables,  e.g.  sept{em)eni ,  nov(^em)eni ;  deni ,  viceni. 

Multiplicatives. 

186.  1.  Semel,  ‘once/  is  from  the  root  sem- ;  §  185.  1. 

2.  Bis  is  for  dots,  preserved  in  the  Glosses  of  Festus  ;  §  104. 
2.  c).  Cf.  Greek  Sis. 

3.  Ter  is  for  *tris  (cf.  Gr.  rpis)  in  unaccented  position. 
The  sequence  of  development  would  be  *tris,  *trs,  *trr,  ter ; 
§§  106.  3  ;  100.  3. 

4.  Quater  is  for  *quatur,  with  e  for  u ,  owing  to  association  with 
ter. 

5.  The  other  Multiplicatives  are  formed  by  the  suffix  -iens,  -tes 
(see  §  20.  2),  which  is  variously  explained.  Some  see  in  it  the 
Participle  of  eo,  so  that  sex-iens  would  mean  literally  ‘  going  six.’ 
Others  identify  it  with  the  Sanskrit  suffix  -yant. 


i32 


Inflections. 


*  PRONOUNS.1 

0 

Personal  Pronouns. 

187.  First  Person.  —  i.  The  Nominative  Singular ,  ego,  for 
earlier  ego  (§  88.  3),  represents  an  Indo-European  *ego. 

2.  The  Genitive  Singular ,  mei ,  is  simply  the  Genitive  Singular 
Neuter  of  the  Possessive  mens,  used  substantively. 

3.  The  Dative  Singular ,  mi  hi,  is  probably  descended  from  an 
Indo-European  *megh-oi  or  *megh-ei,  Locative.  This  would  regu¬ 
larly  appear  in  Latin  as  *mehi  (§§  97.  3.  A;  81.  2).  The  change 
of  e  to  i  took  place  first  when  *mehi  was  in  unaccented  position ; 
§  73.  2.  On  the  shortening  of  the  final  i ,  see  §  88.  3.  Mi  may 
be  a  contraction  of  mihi  or  may  be  identical  with  Greek  /W  (also 
Locative). 

4.  The  Accusative  and  Ablative  Singular ,  me,  was  med  in  early 
Latin.  Possibly  med  was  originally  Ablative  only,  with  the  case¬ 
ending  discussed  in  §  130.  Before  an  initial  consonant  med 
would  become  vie ,  remaining  tried  before  vowels.  Assuming  that 
the  original  Accusative  Singular  was  me ,  the  existence  of  nfe  and 
vied  side  by  side  in  the  Ablative  would  naturally  lead  to  the  rise 
of  vfed  by  the  side  of  the  already  existing  trie  in  the  Accusative. 

5.  Nominative  and  Accusative  Plural ’  nos,  is  apparently  an 
inherited  Indo-European  formation. 

6.  Genitive  Plural. — Nostrum,  nos  Pi  are  the  Genitive  Singu¬ 
lar  and  Genitive  Plural  of  the  Possessive  Pronoun  used  with  sub¬ 
stantive  force. 

7.  Dative  and  Ablative  Plural.  —  Nobis  has  apparently  bor¬ 
rowed  its  termination  -bis  from  vobis  ;  see  below. 

188.  Second  Person.  — The  Indo-European  stem  was  tve-,  with 
weak  grade  tu-.  A  collateral  form  te-  also  appears. 


1  See  Brugmann,  Grundriss,  ii.  §§  407-459;  Lindsay,  Latin  Language , 

chap,  vii;  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik ,  §§  89,  90. 


Pronouns. 


133 


1.  Nominative  Singular .  —  tu  corresponds  to  German  du,  Greek 
tv-  in  Homeric  rvvrj. 

2.  Genitive  Singular.  —  Tut,  like  mei  (§  187.  2)  is  the  Geni¬ 
tive  of  the  Possessive  Pronoun  used  substantively. 

3.  Dative  Singular.  —  Tibi  is  for  an  earlier  *tebi  ;  on  1  for  e, 
see  under  mihi ,  §  187.  3.  The  origin  of  the  termination  -bi  is 
uncertain.  On  the  shortening  of  the  final  -i,  see  §  88.  3. 

4.  Accusative  and  Ablative  Singular.  —  Te  is  for  earlier  ted. 
On  the  origin  and  relation  of  the  two  formations,  see  §  187.  4. 

5.  Nominative  and  Accusative  Plural. —  Vos  represents  an 
Indo-European  formation. 

6.  Genitive  Plural. —  Vestrum,  vestri  are  of  the  same  forma¬ 
tion  as  nostrum ,  nostri ;  see  §  187.  6.  Vo  strum,  vostri ,  for  ves¬ 
trum,  vestri,  result  from  association  with  nostrum,  nostri. 

7.  Dative  and  Ablative  Plural. —  Vbbis  is  formed  with  the  suf¬ 
fix  -bids,  the  relation  of  -bis  in  vo-bis  to  -bi  in  ti-bi  being  perhaps 
determined  by  that  of  illis  to  illi ;  istis  to  isti,  etc. 

The  Reflexive  Pronoun. 

189.  The  stem  of  the  Reflexive  is  *sev~,  with  the  collateral 
form  *se~. 

1.  Genitive.  —  Sui,  like  mei  and  tui,  is  the  Genitive  Singular 
of  the  Possessive  used  substantively. 

2.  Dative.  —  Sibi,  earlier  sibi,  is  for  *sebi.  See  under  mihi, 
§  187.  3.  On  the  shortening  of  the  final  i,  see  §  88.  3. 

3.  Accusative  and  Ablative.  —  Se  is  for  earlier  sed.  See  on 
me,  §  187.  4. 

The  Possessive  Pronouns. 

190.  These  are  formed  by  appending  -os  (-us)  to  the  stems  of 
the  Personal  Pronouns. 

1.  Me-us  is  regular.  The  Vocative  Singular  mi  is  probably  in 
origin  a  Dative  of  Reference  of  the  Personal  Pronoun. 

2.  Tu-us  is  from  the  stem  tev-,  whence  originally  *tev-os,  later 
tovos  (§  73.  3),  preserved  in  early  Latin.  In  enclitic  position  ov 


1 34  Inflections. 

became  u ,  whence  tuos,  tuus ;  see  §  103.  4.  With  Latin  *tev-os, 
cf.  Homeric  Greek  Te(/r)os. 

3.  Su-us  is  from  the  stem  sev-,  whence  originally  *sev-os,  later 
sovos  (73.  3)  preserved  in  early  Latin.  In  enclitic  position,  e.g. 
patrem  sovom ,  ov  became  it,  whence  suos,  suus ;  see  §  103.  4. 
With  primitive  Latin  *sev-os  cf.  Homeric  Greek  epos  for  *aep6<;. 
The  weak  form  of  the  root  sev-  was  sv-.  It  is  this  which  appears 
in  Greek  os  for  07:05,  and  traces  are  present  also  in  Latin,  e.g.  in 
such  forms  as  sis  (Dat.-Abl.  Plu.),  for  *svis  (root  svo-),  found  in 
early  Latin. 

According  to  another  view  situs  is  an  independent  formation, 
collateral  with  sovos. 

The  Demonstrative  Pronouns. 

Hie. 

191.  1.  The  stem  of  hie  was  ho -,  ha-.  To  the  regular  case- 
forms  of  this  stem  was  added  the  suffix  -ce,  often  reduced  to  -c ; 
-ce  itself  represents  a  pronominal  stem  meaning  ‘  here.’ 

2.  Nominative  Singular. 

a)  Masculine.  In  hie ,  the  first  part,  hi-,  is  probably  for  ho  -f-  i, 
a  formative  element  recognized  elsewhere  in  the  inflection  of  this 
pronoun.  Inasmuch  as  oi  in  accented  syllables  regularly  becomes 
it  (see  §  81.  1),  hi-  for  *hoi,  must  have  arisen  in  combinations 
where  the  pronoun  was  proclitic.  Cf.  qui  for  *quo-i.  By  the  side 
of  hie  we  find  hie  in  early  Latin.  The  relation  of  this  to  hie  is 
difficult  to  determine.  Possibly  *hee,  from  he-  (Ablaut  of  ho- ; 
§  64)  was  the  original  form,  whence  hie  in  unaccented  syllables 
(§  7 3.  2).  Some  find  this  *hec  in  one  of  the  Scipio  inscriptions 
GIL.  i.  32  liec  cepit ;  but  e  here  may  be  c,  which  in  early  Latin 
sometimes  stands  for  an  open  i,  so  that  JCec  would  simply  be  a 
graphical  variation  of  hie. 

h)  Feminine.  Haec  for  *ha-i-c(e ),  presents  the  formative  ele¬ 
ment,  -/-,  appended  to  an  original  *ha  (cf.  *  porta) . 

e)  Neuter.  Hoc  is  for  *hod-c(e ),  in  which  -d  is  a  case-ending 


Pronouns. 


135 


peculiar  to  the  Pronominal  Declension.  The  long  quantity  of  the 
0  is  difficult  to  account  for.  Some  have  thought  that  the  o  was 
really  short,  and  that  the  ante-consonantal  form  was  hoc ,  e.g.  hoc 
templum  for  *ho(d)c  templum  (§  105.  1),  while  the  ante-vocalic 
form  was  hocc ,  eg.  hocc  erat. 

3.  Genitive  Singular. — The  earliest  form  of  the  Genitive  Singu¬ 
lar  was  *hoi-os,  whence  hoius ,  preserved  in  early  Latin.  This 
possibly  developed  a  parasitic  j  which  became  permanent,  pro¬ 
ducing  *hoifus,  hujus  (§  81.  1).  In  the  primitive  * hoi-os,  -os 
Avas  the  Genitive  ending  discussed  in  §  138,  while  hoi-  may  be 
ho-  -f  the  formative  element  i  seen  in  the  Nominative. 

4.  Dative  Singular.  —  The  earliest  form  of  the  Dative  Singular 
seems  to  have  been  hoi-c.  The  causes  which  produced  huic  from 
this  are  uncertain. 

5.  Accusative  Singular . — Hunc ,  hanc  are  simply  for  earlier 
*ho-?n-ce,  *ha-??i-ce,  with  obvious  phonetic  changes. 

6.  Ablative  Singular.  —  Hoc ,  hac  for  earlier  *hdd-c(e),  *had-c{d) 
represent  the  same  Ablative  formation  as  regularly  seen  in  a-  and 
^-sterns ;  §§  118  ;  130. 

7.  Plural  Forms. — These  all  follow  the  regular  termination  of 
a-and  0-stems,  except  the  Nominative  and  Accusative  Plural 
Neuter,  haec ,  where  *-ai,  -ae  (instead  of  -a)  represents  a  termina¬ 
tion  of  the  Pronominal  Declension. 

Is. 

192.  1.  The  root  of  this  pronoun  is  ei-,  weak  form  i-  (§  62). 
By  appending  the  suffixes  -0-  and  -a  we  get  the  stems  ejo-,  eja 
or  (by  disappearance  of  the  intervocalic  j)  eo-,  ea-. 

2.  Nominative  Singular. 

a)  Masculine.  Is  shows  the  root  in  the  weak  form  with  the 
case-ending  -s. 

b)  Feminine.  Ea  is  for  *ej-a  ;  see  above,  1. 

c)  Neuter.  Id  shows  the  weak  form  of  the  root  with  the  Pro¬ 
nominal  case-ending  -d. 


136 


Inflections. 


3.  Genitive  Singular.  —  The  earliest  formation  is  thought  to 
have  been  eei  (Locative),  for  *ej-ei  (stem  ejo-).  To  this  was 
added  the  Genitive  ending  -os  (-us),  giving  *eej-os,  *ejos,  ejus. 

4.  Dative  Singular.  —  Ei  for  *e-ei,  earlier  *ej-ei,  was  in  forma¬ 
tion  a  Locative  from  the  stem  ejo-  (see  1).  In  the  Pronouns  the 
Locative  served  not  only  as  Dative,  but  also  as  Genitive.  But  the 
Genitive  (see  3)  has  added  a  further  suffix  for  the  purpose  of 
differentiation. 

5.  Accusative  Singular.  —  Eum ,  earn  represent  an  earlier  *ejom , 
*ejam  (see  1). 

6.  Ablative  Singular.  —  Eb  and  ea,  earlier  eod,  ead,  were  formed 
from  the  stems  *ejo~,  ejd-.  The  case-ending  is  the  same  as  that  of 
a-  and  ^-sterns. 

7.  Plural  Cases.  —  These  are  all  formed  regularly  from  the 
stems  *ejo~,  eja-. 

8.  Idem  is  simply  is  with  the  suffix  -dem. 

Iste,  Ille,  Ipse. 

193.  These  three  pronouns  presumably  contain  in  their  second 
syllable  the  Indo-European  pronoun  *so,  ‘  he  ’ ;  *sa,  ‘  she  ’ ;  *tod, 
*  that.’  But  by  association  and  analogy  the  second  element  has 
become  much  modified. 

194.  Iste.  The  first  syllable  of  iste  is  of  uncertain  origin.  It 
was  apparently  an  unchangeable  element.  By  the  addition  of 
*so,  *sa,  *tod ',  would  arise  *isso,  *issa,  *istod.  The  regular  Accu¬ 
sative  of  *so  was  *tom,  *tam,  *tod  (cf.  Greek  roV,  rdv,  rd(8)), 
whence  *istom,  *istam,  *istod.  The  preponderance  of  forms  with 
t  eventually  caused  *issa  to  become  ista  and  *isso  to  become 
*isto,  later  iste  after  the  analogy  of  ille ,  ipse. 

195.  Ille.  If  olle  was  the  original  of  ille,  as  is  usually  held,  the 
change  from  o  to  i  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  ground  of 
adaptation  to  such  forms  as  iste,  ipse,  is.  Olle,  however,  may  be 


Pronouns. 


137 


for  *ol-so,  *ol-se,  whence  olle  (§  106.  3).  The  Feminine  would 
similarly  have  been  *ol-sa,  olla.  The  Neuter  would  have  been 
*ol-tod,  and  the  Accusative  *oltom ,  *oltam,  *oltod.  Then  the 
forms  with  //  are  assumed  to  have  gained  the  supremacy  over 
those  with  It. 

196.  Ipse .  I-  here  seems  the  root  of  is  (ef.  early  Latin  eapse , 
eumpse ,  eapse,  etc.),  while  -pse  may  be  for  -pe-se  by  Syncope 
(§  92)  ;  -se  would  then  represent  an  original  so  (§  193).  No 
traces  of  /-forms  (§  194)  appear;  the  -se,  -sa  of  the  Nominative 
have  extended  to  the  other  cases.  The  Neuter,  ipsum  (instead 
of  *ipsud),  shows  transition  to  the  Noun  Declension. 

197.  Declension  of  Iste,  Ille,  Ipse.  —  With  the  exception  of  the 
forms  istud,  illud  already  mentioned,  and  the  Genitive  and  Dative 
Singular,  these  all  show  the  usual  terminations  of  the  Noun  Declen¬ 
sion.  The  Genitives  is tius ,  illius,  ipsius  are  formed  by  appending 
-os  (-us)  to  isti,  Hit,  ipst,  Locatives  from  the  stems  is  to-,  illo-,  ipso-. 
These  Locative  formations  served  originally  as  both  Dative  and 
Genitive  in  the  Pronouns.  Later  the  Genitive  was  differentiated 
from  the  Dative;  §  192.  3. 

The  Relative,  Interrogative,  and  Indefinite  Pronouns. 

198.  1.  These  are  all  formed  from  the  same  root,  which  ap¬ 
pears  as  qui-,  quo-,  qua-. 

2.  No7iiinative  Singular. — Quis  shows  the  stem  qui-  with  the 
case-ending  -j.  Qui  is  for  quo  +  i,  a  formative  element  which 
appears  elsewhere  in  the  Pronominal  Declension ;  oi  in  accented 
syllables  regularly  becomes  u,  but  i  for  oi  in  qui  may  perhaps  be 
explained  by  the  enclitic  character  of  the  word.  Quae  is  the 
regular  Feminine  of  the  Relative.  The  formation  is  the  same  as 
seen  in  hae-c  (§  191.  2.  b).  Qua,  which  appears  in  the  Indefinite 
Pronoun,  follows  the  Noun  Declension.  Quo-d  and  qiii-d  append 
the  regular  pronominal  termination  to  their  respective  stems. 


Inflections. 


138 

3.  Genitive  Singular.  —  CTtjus,  for  earlier  quoins ,  *quoios, 
seems  best  explained  like  hujus ;  §  19 1.  3. 

4.  Dative  Singular.  —  Cui  seems  to  have  developed  in  the  first 
century  of  the  Christian  era  from  the  earlier  quoi;  see  §  14. 
Qiioi  was  probably  a  Locative  formation. 

5.  Accusative  Singular. —  Quem  for  *  qui- m  has  followed  the 
analogy  of  /-stems  having  -em  for  -im,  eg.  turrem ,  ovem,  etc.;  § 
152. 

6.  Ablative  Singular.  —  Besides  the  regular  quo,  qua,  quo,  which 
present  no  peculiarities,  we  find  qui  used  for  all  genders  and  (in 
early  Latin)  for  both  numbers.  This  may  have  been  a  genuine 
Ablative  form  (qui  for  *  quid'),  or  an  Instrumental. 

7.  Plural  Forms.  —  Quae  is  analogous  to  hae-c ;  §  19 1.  7.  The 
Dative  and  Ablative  quis  is  from  the  stem  quo-  (§  133)  ;  it  has  no 
formal  connection  with  quibus. 

Pronominal  Adjectives. 

199.  Several  Adjectives  of  pronominal  meaning  have  adopted 
also  the  Pronominal  Declension  in  the  Genitive  and  Dative  Singu¬ 
lar,  viz.  alius,  alter ;  titer,  neuter ;  Ttllus,  nu  lilts  ;  solus,  totus,  units. 
Alius  takes  also  the  pronominal  - d  in  the  Neuter  Singular. 

CONJUGATION.1 

INTRODUCTORY. 

200.  As  compared  with  Greek  and  Sanskrit,  the  Latin  in  its 
verb-system  exhibits  extensive  deviations  from  the  original  conju- 
gational  system  of  the  Indo-European  parent-speech.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  are  the  most  important  points  of  difference  : 

1.  The  Latin  has  lost  the  augment,  i.e.  an  initial  e-,  prefixed  to 
the  secondary  tenses  of  the  Indicative  as  a  symbol  of  past  time. 


1  See  in  general:  Brugmann,  Grundriss ,  ii.  §§  460-1086;  Lindsay,  Latin 
Language,  chap.  viii. ;  Stolz,  Lateinische  Grammatik,  §§  96-118. 


Conjugation .  139 

2.  The  strong  (i.e.  unsigmatic)  Aorist  has  disappeared  almost 
entirely. 

3.  The  original  Perfect  Indicative  has  become  merged  with 
the  sigmatic  Aorist.  The  result  is  a  tense  whose  inflections  are 
derived  from  both  sources,  and  whose  meanings  are  Aoristic  as 
well  as  Perfect. 

4.  The  original  Middle  Voice  has  disappeared,  being  super¬ 
seded  by  a  new  inflection  peculiar  to  Latin  and  Keltic. 

5.  The  Subjunctive  and  Optative  do  not  appear  as  separate 
moods,  but  have  become  fused  into  one,  designated  Subjunctive. 

6.  In  the  Imperfect  and  Future  Indicative  of  the  a-  and  e- 
conjugations  we  meet  new  formations  in  -bam  and  - bo ,  which,  like 
the  /'-Passive,  are  peculiar  to  Latin  and  Keltic. 

7.  In  the  Personal  Endings  the  distinction  between  primary 
and  secondary  endings  has  become  effaced. 

8.  Several  new  tense-formations  have  developed  which  are 
peculiar  to  Latin,  e.g.  the  Perfect  Indicative  in  -vi  and  -ui,  the 
Pluperfect  Subjunctive  in  - issem ,  etc. 

Formation  of  the  Present  Stem. 

201.  Thematic  and  Unthematic  Formation. — The  Latin  in¬ 
herited  two  distinct  types  of  Present  formation.  The  one,  char¬ 
acterized  by  the  presence  of  the  variable  or  thematic  vowel  ( e ,  0) 
before  the  Personal  Endings,  is  called  Thematic.  This  type  is 
illustrated  by  dicu-nt  (for  *dico-nf)  ;  dici-tis  (for  *d~ice-fis) .  The 
other  type  of  Present  formation  has  no  thematic  vowel,  and  hence 
is  called  Unthematic.  Unthematic  presents  originally  had  Ablaut 
(§  62).  The  strong  form  of  the  root  appeared  in  the  Singular, 
the  reduced  form  in  the  Plural.  This  change  was  connected  with 
primitive  accentual  conditions.  In  the  Singular  the  accent  rested 
on  the  root  syllable,  in  the  Plural  on  the  endings. 

In  Greek,  the  Unthematic  Conjugation  is  represented  by  the 
-jju  verbs  (rt-^-/xi,  tl-6c-/x€v),  while  -w  verbs  are  thematic,  e.g. 
\ty-o-fjLtv,  Aey-e-re. 


140 


Inflections. 


Classification  of  Present  Formations. 

A.  Unthematic  Presents. 

202.  Unthematic  Presents  are  but  scantily  represented  in  Latin ; 
for  the  most  part  they  have  passed  over  into  the  thematic  inflec¬ 
tion.  The  following  verbs  are  the  chief  representatives  of  the 
class  : 

1.  Do,  da-s,  ddt  (for  earlier  daf) ;  Plural  dd-mus,  dd-tis,  ddnt. 

2.  Eo. — The  two  forms  of  the  root  were  ei-  (strong),  and  -i 
(weak).  The  primitive  inflection  was  probably  : 


*ei-d 

* i-i?i os  (Gr.  Ifxev) 

*ei-s 

*i-tis  (Gr.  ire) 

*ei-t 

*i-nt 

In  the  First  Singular  *eid  regularly  became  eo  (§  103.  1)  ;  *eis 
became  is  (§  82);  and  *eit ,  it ,  later  it.  The  Plural  seems  to 
have  early  abandoned  the  weak  form  of  the  root  in  favor  of  the 
strong  ;  imus,  itis,  emit,  therefore,  represent  *ei-mos,  *ei-tis,  *ei-ont. 

3.  Sum. — The  strong  form  of  the  root  is  es-,  the  weak  s-. 
The  original  conjugation,  therefore,  was  probably : 

*es~m  *s-mos 

o 

*es-s  *s-tis 

es-t  *s-nt 

The  historical  forms  show  considerable  deviation  from  this. 
Traces  of  *ess  are  seen  in  the  regular  use  of  es  as  long  in  early 
Latin  verse.  The  presumption  is  that  ess  represents  Plautus’s 
pronunciation.  The  First  Singular  sum  probably  represents  a 
special  thematic  formation  *s-o-m ;  and  of  the  same  formation 
are  su-mus  for  *s-o-mos  and  sunt  for  *s-o-nt.  The  Second  Plural 
es-tis  is  formed  from  the  strong  root,  like  the  Second  Singular. 
Enclitic  forms  V  and  'st  sometimes  occur  for  the  Second  and 
Third  Singular.  These  are  often  joined  in  writing  with  a  previous 
word,  e.g.  bonumst  =  bonum  ’ st ;  morast  —  mora  ’ st \  The  usage 
is  poetic  and  colloquial. 


The  Unthematic  Conjugation. 


141 

4.  Edo. — Unthematic  forms  occur  only  in  the  Second  and 
Third  Singular,  and  in  the  Second  Plural.  The  root  shows  no 
Ablaut,  but  appears  everywhere  as  ed-  or,  by  euphonic  change,  as 
es-  for  *ed-t-  (§  108.  1);  here  ed-  represents  a  stronger  form  of 
the  root  than  ed-. 

5.  Fero. — The  unthematic  inflection  is  only  partially  pre¬ 
served,  viz.  in  fer-s, fer-t, fer-tis. 

6.  Volo. — The  only  forms  which  are  certainly  unthematic  are 
vult  and  vultis  (earlier  volt ,  voltis).  The  root  in  the  Singular  was 
normally  *vel-  (cf  vel-im ,  etc.),  but  *vel-t  became  volt  after  the 
analogy  of  vol-tis,  for  vl-tis,  from  weak  root  vl-  (§  100.  1).  The 
Second  Singular  vis  is  not  for  *vel-s,  but  comes  from  the  root  vei-, 
also  meaning  ‘  wish  ’ ;  cf.  in-vitus.  Nolo  is  for  *ne  void ,  and  malo 
for  *mag(e)  void. 

B.  Thematic  Presents. 

203.  Of  these  there  are  the  following  classes  : 

I.  Root  Class. — The  Present  stem  consists  of  the  root  in  its 
strong  form  -f  the  thematic  vowel  e / 0.  More  exactly  the  root 
appeared  in  that  phase  of  the  strong  grade  which  gave  its  name 
to  the  different  Ablaut  Series  (§  62).  Thus  roots  of  the  ^-Series 
had  e,ei(i),  eu(u)  ;  those  of  the  ^-Series  had  d,  etc.  The  ^-Series 
is  most  fully  represented.  Examples  are  : 

e-Series :  leg-e / 0,  root  leg- ;  teg-ej0. .,  root  teg- ;  veh-ej0.,  root 
veh-',  deic-ej0.,  root  deic-  (later  die--,  §  82) ;.  feid-ej  0_,  root  feid- 
(later  fid-) ;  deuc-ej 0.,  root  deuc-  (later  due-) . 

•  a-Series :  ag-ej0_,  root  ag- ;  caed-ej 0.,  root  (s)caid-  (§  68). 

a-Series :  vad-ej0.,  root  vdd-. 

e-Series  :  ced-ej0.,  root  ced-. 

o-Series  :  rod-ej0.,  root  rod-. 

II.  Reduplicating  Class.  —  The  Present  Stem  is  formed  by 
prefixing  to  the  root  -f-  the  thematic  vowel  e /0,  a  reduplicating 
syllable,  which  consists  of  the  initial  consonant  of  the  root  +  i. 
The  root  appears  in  its  weak  form  (§  62).  Examples  :  gi-gn-ej 0., 


142 


Inflections. 


root  gen-  ( cf '.  Gr.  yL-yv-o-/uai) ;  si-d-ef0.  for  si-sd-ef0.  (§  89),  root 
sed-.  Sisto,  root  sta,  and  se-rd  for  *si-sd  (§§  98.  1),  root  *se-, 
do  not  strictly  belong  here.  They  were  originally  unthematic 
formations  (cf.  Gr.  (cr)t-o-r?;-/xi,  (a-)t-(cr)?;-/xi),  but  have  passed  in 
Latin  into  the  thematic  conjugation  ;  bibo  is  not  properly  a  redu¬ 
plicated  formation.  The  root  was  pib-  (cf.  Skr.  pibdmi;  Gr. 
€7rt/?Sa  for  *€7ri-7u/3-Sa) .  The  Latin  word  results  from  assimilation 
of  p  to  b. 

III.  T-Class.  —  This  class,  like  the  preceding,  is  but  sparingly 
represented  in  Latin.  The  root  appears  in  its  strong  form,  to 
which  is  appended  P-fi..  Examples  are  :  nec-t?- / 0.,  plec-te- / 0_, 
pec-te- / 'o_,  flec-tef0.. 

IV.  N-Class.  —  The  Present  Stem  is  formed  with  a  nasal  infix 
before  the  final  consonant  of  the  root ;  to  this  is  appended  the 
thematic  vowel  e~ / 0..  The  root  appears  in  the  weak  form.  Exam¬ 
ples  :  finde- / root  fid- ;  rump-e- / 0.,  root  rup- ;  jung -efi0->  root  jug-. 
Originally  the  infix  was  confined  to  the  Present  system,  but  in 
some  words,  as  jungo ,  it  appears  throughout  the  entire  verb,  e.g. 
j ungo,  junxi ,  junctus. 

V.  NO-Class. — To  the  root  in  its  weak  form  is  added  the 
suffix  ne‘ / j.  Originally  verbs  of  this  class  were  unthematic. 
The  primitive  suffix  was  nil-  in  the  Singular,  and  nil-  in  Plural. 
The  Personal  endings  were  appended  directly  to  these  suffixes,  so 
that  a  verb  like  sterna,  for  example,  was  originally  inflected  : 

*ster-nu-d  *  ster-nu-mos 

*ster-nu-s  *  ster-nu-tis 

*sler-nu-t  *ster-nu-nt 

But  *  ster-nu-mos,  * sternutis ,  *sternunt(i)  regularly  developed 
phonetically  to  sternimus,  sternitis,  sternunt.  These  forms  were 
identical  with  the  thematic  inflection,  and  hence  led  to  sterno, 
sternis ,  sternit  in  the  Singular,  after  the  analogy  of  dicimus,  (ilei¬ 
tis,  dicunt  to  died,  dtcis,  dicit.  Other  examples  are  sper-no , 
temno,  li-nb,  si-?w,  tollo  for  *tl-no  (§  100.  1). 


The  Thematic  Conjugation. 


143 


VI.  SCO-Class.  —  The  Present  stem  is  formed  by  appending 
scej0.  to  the  root,  eg.  hi-sco ,  gli-sco,  cre-sco ,  {g)  nd-sco,  posed  for 
*porc-sco,  subsco  for  *sued-sco. 

Many  secondary  formations  also  occur,  as  gemi-sco,  trenfe-sco ; 
especially  derivatives  from  contract  verbs,  as  fldresed  from  fldred  ; 
/abased  from  labo  ;  and  even  from  nouns  and  adjectives,  as  lapi- 
desco ,  iv res co ,  duresco. 

VII.  JO-Class.  —  The  Present  Stem  is  formed  by  appending 
the  suffix  jej0-  to  a  root  or  stem.  Several  different  formations 
must  be  distinguished. 

a)  jej0  -  Presents  from  roots  ending  in  a  consonant.  Here  j 
becomes  i,  eg.  jac-io  for  *jac-jo  ;  capio  for  *  cap  jo,  and  all  the 
so-called  verbs  in  -id  of  the  Third  Conjugation.  Some  verbs 
originally  of  this  formation  have  passed  over  into  the  inflection  of 
contract  verbs  in  -id,  -ire  (see  b,  below) ,  eg.  venio,  venire. 

b)  jej0-  Presents  from  roots  and  stems  ending  in  a  vowel.  The 
j,  here  becoming  intervocalic,  disappears  and  the  concurrent 
vowels  (except  in  the  First  Singular  of  e-  and  z-verbs)  regularly 
contract.  Examples : 

1)  Monosyllabic  roots  :  impte-mus  for  *implejo-mos ,  root  pie- ; 
intramus  for  *intrajomos,  root  trd-. 

2)  Dissyllabic  verb-stems :  domdmus  for  *do-majo-mos,  stem 
doma-. 

3)  Noun  and  Adjective  stems  in  -a,  e,  t :  curamus,  stem  curd- ; 
rub'emus,  stem  rube- ;  fimmus,  stem  fitii-. 

These  ^-contracts  form  the  so-called  First  Conjugation,  the  e- . 
and  ^-contracts  the  Second  Conjugation,  and  the  ^-contracts  the 
Fourth  Conjugation. 

c)  Causatives  in  ejej0.,  eg.  mon-eo ,  doc-eo,  torr-eo.  These  all 
take  the  0-phase  of  the  strong  form  of  the  root  (§  64).  They 
regularly  suffer  contraction  and  form  a  part  of  the  Second  Conju¬ 
gation. 

d)  Verbs  in  -ojo-  probably  once  existed  in  Latin,  but  have  dis¬ 
appeared.  Thus  aro ,  ardre  was  probably  originally  *aroo  (for 


144 


Inflections . 


*arojo)  ;  cf.  Gr.  apoo).  The  adjective  aegrotus  is  likewise  possibly 
to  be  referred  to  an  original  *aegro. 

Tense  Formation  in  the  Indicative. 

The  Imperfect. 

204.  The  termination  -bam  in  the  Imperfect  Indicative  is 
plausibly  explained  as  representing  an  Indo-European  Aorist, 
*bhvam,  from  the  root  bliu -.  This  seems  to  have  been  appended 
to  some  oblique  case  of  a  noun  derived  from  the  stem  of  the  verb. 
The  primitive  formation  would  be  represented  by  *  amabhvam, 
*monebhvam,  *  legebhvam,  * audibhvam.  On  b  for  bh  in  the  in¬ 
terior  of  words,  see  §  97.  1.  b;  bhv-  regularly  becomes  b,  eg. 
supe?'bus  for  *super-bhv-os.  This  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Latin 
Imperfect  finds  confirmation  in  Slavonic,  where  the  Imperfect 
consists  of  a  case-form  of  a  verbal  noun  +  the  past  tense  of  the 
verb  ‘  to  be.’ 

Early  Latin  has  both  -ibain  and  -iebam  in  verbs  of  the  Fourth 
Conjugation.  The  ending  -iebam,  however,  is  later  in  origin  than 
ibam ,  and  was  borrowed  from  z'<?-verbs  of  the  Third  Conjugation, 
eg.  capiebam. 

Some  have  thought  that  the  element  preceding  the  -bam  in  the 
Imperfect  was  an  old  Infinitive.  Cf.  i-licet,  lit.  ‘  it  is  permitted  to 
go  ’ ;  sci-licet,  ‘  it  is  permitted  to  know  ’ ;  vid'e-licet,  ‘  it  is  permitted 
to  see  ’ ;  also  such  compounds  as  are-facio ,  ‘  to  make  dry.’ 

Eram  for  earlier  *es-dm  (§  98.  1)  exhibits  the  same  praeterite 
formation  as  that  assumed  for  *-bhv-am  in  amcibam ,  etc. 

The  Future. 

205.  1.  The  Future  in  -bo.  —  The  Future  in  -bb  is  analogous 
to  the  Imperfect  in  -bam ;  -bb  is  probably  the  Present  of  the  root 
bhu -,  so  that  amabo  (for  *ama-bhvo ;  §  204)  literally  means  ‘I 
become  loving.’  Cf.  the  analogous  German  ich  werde  lieben.  On 
ama-t  mone-  in  this  formation,  see  §  204.  The  Future  in  -bb  is 


The  Perfect.  145 

found  also  in  verbs  of  the  Fourth  Conjugation  in  early  Latin,  e.g. 
scibo ,  audibo. 

2.  The  Future  in -am.  —  This  formation,  regular  in  the  Third 
and  Fourth  Conjugations,  is  in  reality  a  Subjunctive,  or  rather  two 
Subjunctives,  that  have  taken  on  Future  force.  The  1st  Singular 
in  -ain  (for  *-am)  is  an  ^-Subjunctive ;  the  remaining  forms  are 
^-Subjunctives.  See  §§  221  ;  222. 

3.  The  Future  in  -so.  —  This  formation  appears  in  such  archaic 
forms  as  dixo,faxo,  which  are  in  reality  Aorist  Subjunctives  that 
have  taken  on  Future  force.  The  Future  of  sum,  erb,  is  similarly 
a  Present  Subjunctive,  for  *es-d  (§  98.  1)  ;  cf.  Homeric  Greek 
e(<r)co,  Attic  w  (by  contraction). 

The  Perfect. 

The  Reduplication. 

206.  1.  In  Verbs  beginning  with  a  Consonant.  —  The  Redupli¬ 
cation  in  such  verbs  regularly  consisted  of  the  initial  consonant  +  e. 
Where  the  root  began  with  sc,  sp,  or  st,  the  sc,  sp,  or  st  appeared 
in  the  reduplicating  syllable,  but  the  j  was  lost  in  the  root  syllable, 
e.g.  sci-ci-di  (early  Latin),  spopondi,  ste-ti.  The  reduplicating 
vowel,  e,  was  assimilated  to  the  root  vowel  when  the  latter  was  the 
same  in  the  Perfect  as  in  the  Present,  e.g.  mo-mord-i,  sci-cid-i, 
pu-pug-i,  di-dic-i,  spo-pond-i ;  but  the  original  forms  with  e  are  often 
found  in  early  Latin,  e.g.  memordi,  pepugi,  spepondi,  fhefhaked 
CIL.  xiv.  4123. 

The  Reduplication  has  disappeared  very  largely  in  Latin,  yet 
traces  of  its  earlier  presence  are  sometimes  distinguishable,  e.g.  in 
rettuTi  for  *  re-  (te)  tuli  (§  92)  ;  repperi  for  re-  (pe)peri ;  reccidi 
for  *re-(ce)cidi.  In  the  same  way  fidi,  scidi  represent  an  earlier 
*fefidi,  *scecidi  (cf.  early  Latin  scicidi ). 

2.  In  Veils  beginning  with  a  Vowel.  —  The  Reduplication  here 
consisted  in  prefixing  e.  Only  a  few  verbs  have  preserved  it,  e.g. 
eg i  for  *e-agi ;  edi  for  *e-edi ;  -epi  (for  *e-ap~i)  in  coepi,  for  *co- 
~epi,  root  ap>-  ;  emi  for  *e -emi. 


146 


Inflections. 


Stem  Formation  of  the  Perfect. 

A.  The  Primitive  Perfect. 

207.  In  the  Indo-European  parent-speech  the  accent  rested 
on  the  root  syllable  in  the  Singular  of  the  Perfect,  but  on  the 
Personal  Ending  in  the  Plural.  It  was  probably  owing  to  these 
primitive  accentual  conditions  that  the  strong  form  of  the  root 
appeared  in  the  Singular,  the  reduced  form  in  the  Plural.  The 
special  phase  of  the  strong  form  appearing  in  the  Singular  was 
that  containing  o  or  0  (see  the  various  Ablaut  Series,  §  62  ff.). 
Several  of  the  Indo-European  languages,  as  Sanskrit,  Greek, 
the  Teutonic,  have  preserved  with  more  or  less  fulness  the  original 
Ablaut  of  the  root  in  the  Perfect ; 1  but  in  Latin  there  has  been  a 
uniform  ‘  levelling  ’ ;  either  the  strong  form  has  invaded  the  Plural 
(the  usual  sequel),  or  the  weak  form  has  invaded  the  Singular. 
Examples  of  the  former  process  may  be  seen  in  totondimus ,  spo- 
pondimus ;  of  the  latter  in  -ce-cid-i,  tu-tud-i.  In  most  Latin  verbs, 
however,  other  formations  have  largely  displaced  both  of  those 
just  mentioned.  This  has  come  partly  as  the  result  of  phonetic 
changes,  partly  from  the  workings  of  analogy.  The  whole  subject 
is  too  intricate  for  detailed  consideration  here.  See  Lindsay,  Latin 
Language ,  p.  494  f. 

B.  The  Perfect  in  -si. 

208.  The  Perfect  in  -si,  which  appears  chiefly  in  roots  ending 
in  labial,  dental,  and  guttural  mutes,  is  by  origin  an  Aorist  which 
has  passed  over  to  the  Perfect  inflection.  Cf.  Latin  dix-i  with 


1  Cf,  for  example,  Greek 


or  Gothic 


oi8-a 

ld-/J.€V 

oicr-da 

la-re 

oiS-e 

t<T-a<TL, 

vait 

vit-urn 

vaist 

vit-up 

vait 

vit-un 

The  Perfect. 


147 


Greek  e-Sei£-a.  Some  verbs  have  preserved  both  the  true  Per¬ 
fect  and  this  Aorist  Perfect,  e.g.  peperci  and  parfi ;  pupugi  and 
(in  compounds)  -punxi ;  pepigi  and  (in  compounds)  - panxi . 


C.  The  Perfect  in  -vi. 


209.  The  Perfect  in  -vi  is  a  new  formation  which  has  devel¬ 
oped  in  the  separate  history  of  Latin  itself.  The  origin  of  this 
suffix  is  not  clear ;  according  to  one  theory,  -vi  is  borrowed  from 
such  Perfects  as  favi ,  lavi ,  fovi ,  movi ,  vdvi,  juvi ,  where  v  really 
belongs  to  the  stem. 


D.  The  Perfect  in  -ui. 


210.  The  Perfect  in  -ui  is  a  development  of  that  in  -vi ;  -vi 
is  thought  to  have  been  added  to  extended  forms  of  the  root, 
e.g.  *gen-e-vi  (root  gen -),  *dom-a-vi  (root  dom-),  whence  genui , 
domui ;  §  103.  4.  From  forms  like  these  the  category  might  easily 
extend  itself.  Its  diffusion  was  probably  assisted  by  the  existence 
of  such  Perfects  as  fui ,  plui  for  early  fuvi  (Ennius), pluvi,  etc. 


The  Inflection  of  the  Perfect. 


211.  In  its  inflection  the  Latin  Perfect  presents  a  mingling  of 
Perfect  and  Aorist  forms.  The  exact  determination  of  the  details 
of  this  fusion  furnishes  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  of  his¬ 
torical  Latin  grammar ;  the  following  explanations  can  claim  only 
a  certain  degree  of  probability. 

212.  The  type  of  Perfect  inflection  existing  in  Latin  prior  to 
the  fusion  of  Perfect  and  Aorist  may  be  partially  reconstructed 
as  follows  : 


Singular. 

1.  vidT 

2.  ? 


? 

*vid-ent  (for  *z nd-nt) 


Plural. 

vid-i-mus 


3.  *vide 


1  No  attempt  is  here  made  to  discuss  Ablaut  changes. 


148 


Inflections. 


Of  these  forms  vidi  in  the  First  Singular  represents  an  Indo- 
European  middle,  *v id-ai.  The  Second  Singular  and  Second 
Plural  cannot  be  conjectured  with  any  degree  of  satisfaction. 

213.  The  type  of  Aorist  with  which  the  true  Perfect  was  ulti¬ 
mately  fused  was  a  formation  consisting  of  the  root  -j-  the  suffix 
-es-  (-is- ;  §  73.  2),  to  which  the  Personal  Endings  were  appended 
directly  (unthematic  formation;  §  201).  The  inflection  may  be 
reconstructed  as  follows  : 

Singular.  Plural. 

1.  *vid-er-em  (iox*vid-es-ni  ;  §§98.1;  102.  1)  vid-i-mus  (for  *vid-is-mos) 

2.  *vid-is  (for  *vid-is-s)  vid-is-tis 

3.  *vid-is-t  *vid-er-ent  (for  *vld-is-nf) 

214.  The  identity  of  the  First  Plural  of  the  Perfect  and  Aorist 
seems  to  have  furnished  the  starting-point  for  the  formal  fusion  of 
the  two  tenses ;  vidistis  in  the  Second  Plural  is  the  Aorist  form ; 
so  is  viderunt  in  the  Third  Plural,  with  *-ent  changed  to  -unt 
after  the  analogy  of  other  tenses,  e.g.  regun t ,  amab-unt;  e  (for  e ) 
in  -erunt  is  of  uncertain  origin.  Probably  it  was  borrowed  from 
the  Perfect  Third  Plural  in  -ere,  which  is  certainly  a  different 
formation,  though  not  at  present  well  understood.  The  scansion 
-erunt,  frequent  in  poetry,  preserves  the  earlier  quantity.  In  the 
Singular,  vidi  has  already  been  explained  as  originally  a  Middle 
which  has  assumed  the  function  of  the  Active.  The  Second 
Singular  vidisti  is  difficult  of  explanation.  Possibly  the  primitive 
form  of  the  Second  Singular  Perfect  may  have  been  *visti.  If 
so  vidisti  may  be  a  contamination  of  *visti  (Perfect)  and  *vidis 
(Aorist),  helped  on  by  the  influence  of  the  Second  Plural  vidistis. 
The  assumption  of  a  Perfect  *visti,  however,  involves  difficulties. 
The  Personal  Ending  of  the  Second  Singular  Perfect  was  -tha  in 
Indo-European.  Cf.  Greek  oTaOa  for  */roiS-0a.  In  Latin  -tha 
should  become  -te  (§  71.  1).  Influence  of  the  Second  Singular 
Middle  ending  *-sai  (=  Latin  -si)  has  been  suggested.  The 
Third  Singular  *vide  early  assumed  the  regular  Personal  Ending, 


The  Perfect . 


149 


t ',  of  the  other  tenses.  This  gave  *vtdet ,  vidit.  Some  have 
thought  that  in  the  true  Perfect  in  Latin  the  primitive  Third 
Singular  was  *vidi  (a  Middle  form,  like  the  First  Singular).  Some 
evidence  in  favor  of  this  view  is  found  in  the  frequent  long 

quantity  of  -it  in  early  Latin  poetry. 

% 

The  Pluperfect. 

215.  The  Pluperfect  Indicative  in  -eram  is  a  development  of 

the  Aorist  mentioned  above  in  §  213.  The  starting-point  of 
development  was  the  First  Singular.  This  was  first  *mderem , 
which  became  videram ,  apparently  under  the  influence  of  the 
Imperfect  in  -bam.  The  remaining  inflection  -also  follows  the 
Imperfect.  ✓ 

The  Future  Perfect. 

216.  The  Future  Perfect  Indicative  is  an  Aorist  Subjunctive. 
Thus  videro  is  for  a  primitive  *veid-es-o  (§  98.  1),  in  which  -es-  is 
the  same  Aorist  suffix  as  already  mentioned  in  §  §  213,  215.  Greek 
elSco,  which  has  become  a  part  of  the  Perfect  system,  represents 
the  same  formation,  being  for  * /reiS-ecr-w,  whence  regularly  d8-e w 
(Homer),  dSa>  (Attic). 

The  inflection  follows  that  of  Presents  in  -0,  -is,  -it,  except  in 
the  3d  Plural,  which  has  -int  instead  of  -unt,  probably  owing  to  the 
influence  of  the  Perfect  Subjunctive,  with  which  it  regularly  agrees 
in  the  other  persons  and  numbers. 

The  Optative. 

217.  There  were  two  Optative  formations  in  Indo-European,  a 
thematic  and  an  unthematic.  Greek  \v-o-l-/ju  represents  the  for¬ 
mer,  ara-Lr]-v  the  latter.  In  Latin  probably  only  the  unthematic 
type  is  to  be  recognized.  Owing  to  the  thorough  fusion  of  Opta¬ 
tive  and  Subjunctive  (§  353)  all  Optative  forms  are  traditionally 
known  as  Subjunctives. 


150 


Inflections. 


218.  Present  Optative.  —  Only  a  few  forms  occur.  The  special 
suffix  of  the  unthematic  Optative  was  -le-  in  the  Singular,  -i-  in  the 
Plural. 

Thus  the  primitive  inflection  of  the  Present  Optative  of  the  root 
es-,  ‘  to  be/  was  : 

Singular,  Plural. 

1.  *s-ie-m  (siem  ;  88.  3)  s-i-mus 

2.  s-ie-s  s-i-tis 

3.  s-ie-t  *s-i-nt  ( s-i-nt ) 

The  classical  inflection  of  the  Singular,  sim,  sis,  sit,  is  not 
original,  but  is  formed  after  the  analogy  of  the  Plural.  Similarly 
in  early  Latin  we  find  siemus,  sietis,  sient  after  the  analogy  of 
siem,  etc.  The  weak  form  of  the  root,  as  above,  regularly  appeared 
in  this  formation.  Other  illustrations  of  this  Optative  are  velim 
(for  *vel-ie-m,  after  vel-i-mus ),  nolim,  malim ,  edim  (edd,  ‘  eat  ’), 
du-ini,  possim. 

219.  Aorist  Optative.  —  The  so-called  Perfect  Subjunctive  in 
-eritn  is  by  origin  an  Aorist  Optative.  The  tense  is  formed  by 
means  of  the  Aorist  suffix  -es-  already  mentioned  in  §§  213,  215, 
to  which  is  further  appended  the  Optative  suffix  te~,  1-  (§  218). 
Thus  the  original  inflection  of  viderim  was  : 

*veid-es-ie-?n  *veid-es-i-mus 

*veid-es-ie-s  *veid-es-i-tis 

*veid-es-ie-t  *veid-es-i-nt 

By  change  of  ei  to  1  (§  82)  and  by  rhotacism  (§  98.  1)  this 
gave  *videriem,  etc.,  Plural  viderimus.  But  the  ie  of  the  Singular 
was  early  changed  to  1  after  the  analogy  of  the  Plural,  giving 
viderim,  videris,  viderit.  The  long  vowel  was  sometimes  retained 
in  the  (rare)  1st  and  2d  Plural. 

Latin  *videriem  is  identical  with  Greek  (for  * freL&-co--ir)-v) , 

which,  like  dSw  (see  §  216),  has  become  associated  with  the  Per¬ 
fect  system. 


The  Subjunctive . 


15^ 

Another  Aorist  formation  was  by  means  of  the  suffix  in  place 
of  -is-.  This  is  seen  in  dixim, faxim,  ausim ,  for  earlier  *  dic-s-ie-m, 
etc. 

The  Subjunctive. 

220.  Two  formations,  both  descended  from  Indo-European,  are 
to  be  recognized.  One  of  these  is  characterized  by  the  suffix  a  and 
is  confined  exclusively  to  the  Present  tense ;  the  other  is  charac¬ 
terized  by  the  suffix  e,  and  appears  not  only  in  the  Present,  but  in 
the  other  tenses  as  well.  Both  these  suffixes  take  the  place  of  the 
thematic  vowel  of  the  corresponding  Indicative  formations. 

221.  A-Subjunctives.  —  Examples  are  moneam  (for  *mone- 
ja-tn ),  reg-a-m ,  audiam ,  earlier  *  regain,  *audiam  ;  §  88.  2. 

222.  E-Subjunctives. 

1.  Amem  (for  *amd-je-m)  evidently  has  preferred  this  type,  to 
avoid  the  identity  of  Indicative  and  Subjunctive  which  would  have 
resulted  from  the  ^-formation  here ;  *amd-jd-?n,  etc.,  would  have 
given  *amdm,  *amds,  *amat. 

2.  The  so-called  Future  Indicative  of  the  Third  and  Fourth 
Conjugations  is  (outside  the  First  Singular)  a  Present  Subjunctive 
of  the  F- formation  which  has  taken  on  Future  function,  eg. 
fer-'e-s,  audi-e-s,  etc. 

3.  The  Imperfect  Subjunctive  also  belongs  here.  There  are 
two  types,  both  Aorists  in  origin  : 

a)  -s-  Aorists.  Examples  are  :  es-s-em,  ferrem  for  * fer-s-iun 
(§  106.  3),  vellein  for  *ve/-s-em  (§  106.  3)  ;  aind-r-ern  for  *amd- 
s-em  (§  98.  1)  ;  mone-r-em  for  *mone-s-em,  audi-r-em  for  *audi- 
s-em. 

b)  -es-  Aorists,  eg.  reg-er-em  for  *reg-es-em  (§  98.  1). 

4.  The  Pluperfect  Subjunctive  is  an  -es-  Aorist,  with  a  second 
s  of  uncertain  origin,  i.e.  vidissem  for  *vid-es-s-em. 


152 


Inflections. 


The  Imperative. 

A.  Active. 

223.  Present,  Second  Singular.  —  The  most  probable  view  is 
that  which  regards  this  form  as  consisting  of  the  simple  stem. 
The  Imperative,  then,  will  be  analogous  to  the  Vocative,  to 
which  it  bears  in  general  meaning  a  strong  resemblance.  Exam¬ 
ples  are  :  i,  es,  per,  leg-e,  ama  (for  *ama-je),  mone  (for  *mone-je), 
audi  (for  *audi-je).  Verbs  in  Ad  of  the  Third  Conjugation  follow 
the  root  class  (§  203.  1),  e.g.  cape.  Die ,  due,  fac  are  probably 
for  dice,  duce,face  by  dropping  off  the  final  short  e. 

224.  Present,  Second  Plural.  —  This  is  formed  by  adding  -te  to 
the  stem,  e.g.  i-te,fer-te,  es-te,  legite  (for  */ege-te ;  §  73.  2),  amate , 
monete,  audite. 

225.  Future,  Second  and  Third  Singular.  —  The  termination 

is  -to,  earlier  -tod,  appended  to  the  Present  Stem,  e.g.  ito,  ferto, 
esto,  legito,  etc.  Originally  this  formation  had  Plural  as  well  as 
Singular  force.  Strictly,  too,  it  was  a  Present,  not  a  Future ;  the 
Future  force  is  a  special  development  of  the  Latin.  The  ending 
-tod  is  preserved  in  early  Latin,  e.g.  licetod,  datod,  violdtdd. 

226.  Future,  Second  and  Third  Plural. — The  termination  of 
the  Second  Plural  -tote  is  simply  a  pluralization  of  the  Singular 
-to.  The  Third  Plural  termination  -nto  is  a  new  formation  ( cf. 
§  225)  after  the  analogy  of  the  relation  existing  between  the 
Third  Singular  and  Third  Plural  of  the  Present  Indicative,  i.e. 

sunto  :  esto  : :  sunt  :  est 
regunto  :  regito  :  :  regunt :  regit 
amanto  :  amato  : :  amant :  *amat 

B.  Passive. 

227.  The  Present.  —  The  Second  Singular  ending  -re  repre¬ 
sents  an  original  -so,  so  that  Latin  seque-re  corresponds  exactly  to 
Greek  h re(o-)o,  enov.  The  Second  Plural  in  -mini  is  probably  an 


The  Personal  Endings. 


153 


old  Infinitive  which  has  taken  on  the  function  of  the  Imperative. 
Cf.  the  Homeric  use  of  the  Infinitive  as  an  Imperative.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  this  view  Latin  legi-mini  =  Greek  Aeye/xevat,  both  forms 
being  originally  the  Dative  of  a  verbal  noun  with  the  suffix  -men. 
Cf.  ger-men ,  Dat.  ger-mini. 

228.  The  Future  forms  are  the  result  of  appending  the  Passive 
-r  (§  235)  to  the  corresponding  Active  forms. 

The  Personal  Endings.1 

A.  Active. 

229.  1st  Singular.  —  In  the  Indo-European  parent-speech  -0 
was  the  termination  of  the  primary  tenses  of  the  Thematic  Con¬ 
jugation,  while  -mi  was  the  termination  of  the  Unthematic  Conju¬ 
gation.  Secondary  tenses  had  -m  only.  Latin  shows  no  traces 
of  -mi  (on  sum ,  see  §  202.  3);  -0  appears  in  the  Present,  Future, 
and  Future  Perfecf  Indicative.  Elsewhere  in  the  Indicative  and 
everywhere  in  the  Subjunctive  (including  some  original  Optatives) 
-m  appears,  eg.  atnabam ,  amaveram,  sim ,  essem ,  etc. 

230.  2d  Singular.  —  The  Indo-European  endings  were  -si 
(primary)  and  (secondary).  Latin  may  represent  the 
secondary  ending,  or  original  *-si  may  have  lost  its  final  short 
vowel,  so  that  legis,  for  example,  may  be  either  for  */eg-e-s  or 
*  leg- e-si. 

231.  3d  Singular.  —  The  Indo-European  endings  were  -ti 
(primary)  and  -t  (secondary).  Apparently  in  the  earliest  Latin, 
-t  had  become  -d.  Cf.  early  inscriptional  forms,  eg.  vhevhaked , 
feced,fecid,  sied ;  -ti,  on  the  other  hand,  became  -t  and  very  early 
supplanted  the  -d  of  the  secondary  tenses.  The  closely  related 
Oscan  dialect  exhibits  this  distinction  of  -d  and  -t  assumed  for 
early  Latin. 

1  The  endings  of  the  Perfect  Indicative  and  of  the  Imperative  have  already 
been  considered  in  §§  21 1  ff.,  223  ff. 


154 


Inflections. 


232.  ist  Plural. — The  only  ending  appearing  in  Latin  is  -mus, 
earlier  *-mos,  which  seems  to  stand  in  Ablaut  relation  (§  62)  to 
Greek  -/xes  (dialectal). 

233.  2d  Plural. — The  Latin  ending  -tis  probably  represents  an 
Indo-European  -flies,  which  was  the  ending  of  the  2d  Dual. 

234.  3d  Plural.  —  The  Indo-European  endings  were  -nti 
(primary)  and  -nt  (secondary).  In  the  Italic  languages  -nti 
became  -nt,  while  -nt  became  -ns.  Oscan  and  Umbrian  preserve 
this  distinction,  but  in  Latin,  *-ns  has  disappeared,  being  every¬ 
where  supplanted  by  -nt  (for  -nti) . 

B.  Passive. 

235.  The  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  Latin  Passive  is 
the  presence  of  final  r.  This  formation,  in  its  wide  application, 
is  found  only  in  the  Italic  and  Keltic  groups  of  the  Indo-European 
family.  Its  origin  is  not  clear.  Some  have  connected  it  with  the 
Sanskrit  ending  -re  of  the  Perfect  Middle.  One  thing  is  perfectly 
certain :  Latin  r  does  not  arise  from  the  reflexive  se  as  was  for¬ 
merly  held.  In  general  the  Latin  Passive  is  an  outgrowth  of  an 
earlier  Middle.  With  the  exception  of  the  ist  Singular  and  ist 
Plural,  Middle  forms  are  seen  to  have  been  at  the  basis  of  the 
developed  inflection. 

236.  ist  Singular. — Where  the  Active  form  ends  in  -0,  the 
Passive  is  formed  by  adding  r,  e.g.  regor  (earlier  -or;  %  88.  2), 
aniabor.  Where  the  Active  ends  in  -m,  the  Passive  has  r  instead 
of  -m,  e.g.  amer,  amabar . 

237.  2d  Singular.  —  This  is  in  origin  a  Middle,  formed  with 
the  Indo-European  ending  *-so,  the  termination  of  secondary 
tenses  in  the  Middle.  Thus  sequere  is  for  *seqne-so  (§  98.  1). 
Cf.  Greek  e7re-(cr)o,  e-n-ov.  The  ending  -ris  arises  secondarily  from 
-re  by  further  appending  -s,  the  ending  of  the  2d  Singular  Active. 


155 


The  Personal  Endings. 

Thus  sequeris  for  *sequere-s  (§  73.  2).  This  was  possibly  the 
result  of  an  effort  to  distinguish  the  Indicative  2d  Singular  from 
the  Imperative. 

238.  3d  Singular. — To  the  original  Middle  formation,  eg. 
*leg-i-/o,  for  *leg-e-to ,  with  secondary  ending  -to  (cf.  Greek  e-Ae'y- 
e-ro)  was  added  the  Passive  -r,  eg.  *legito-r,  legitur. 

239.  1st  Plural.  —  In  place  of  -s  of  the  Active  ending  -mus  we 
have  the  Passive  -r,  eg.  regimu-r. 

240.  2d  Plural. — We  have  here  a  periphrastic  formation; 
legimini ,  etc.,  stand  for  legimini  estis,  in  which  legimini  is  a  Middle 
Participle  of  the  same  type  as  Greek  Xeyo-fxev-oL.  This  formation 
must  have  originated  in  the  Present  Indicative ;  legebamini , 
lege  mini,  legamini,  legeremini  are  all  secondary,  formed  after  the 
analogy  of  legimini. 

241.  3d  Plural.  —  The  3d  Plural,  like  the  3d  Singular,  was 
originally  a  genuine  Middle  formation,  in  -nto,  the  termination  of 
the  secondary  tenses,  eg.  *  leg  unto  for  *lego-nto  (cf.  Greek  i-Xiyo- 
vro).  To  this  was  added  the  Passive  -r,  eg.  *lego-ntor,  leguntur. 

The  Infinitive. 

242.  In  Latin,  as  in  other  Indo-European  languages,  the  Infini¬ 
tives  are  oblique  cases  of  verbal  nouns  which  have  become  stereo¬ 
typed  by  usage.  The  Dative  and  Locative  cases  have  contributed 
most  largely  to  this  category. 

A.  Active. 

243.  Present.  —  This  was  apparently  in  origin  the  Locative  of 
a  noun  with  an  -es-,  -os-  suffix.  Thus  reg-er-e  for  a  primitive 
*i'eg-es-i  (§  1 41),  as  though  from  a  Nom.  *reg-os.  Unthematic 
verbs  appended  -se  (for  -si),  eg.  es-se,  fer-re,  for  *fer-se;  vel-le 

for  *ve l-se. 


156 


Inflections. 


244.  Perfect.  —  The  Locative  -s-e  (for  si)  is  appended  to 
the  -es-  Aorist  stem  (§  213,  215),  e.g.  vid-is-se. 

245.  Future.  —  In  such  forms  as  dicturum  esse ,  it  is  probable 
that  originally  dicturum  was  not  a  participle,  but  an  Infinitive. 
The  form  has  been  plausibly  explained  as  being  contracted  from 
dictu  *crom,  where  dictu  is  Supine,  and  *erom  (for  *es-om;  §  98.  1) 
the  old  Infinitive  of  the  root  es-  (-esse).  This  Infinitive  is  pre¬ 
served  in  Oscan  and  Umbrian,  though  lost  in  Latin.  The  original 
force  of  dictu  *erom  would  be  ‘  to  be  for  saying,’  i.e.  ‘  to  be  about 
to  say’  (on  dictu  see  §  252.  2).  The  foregoing  explanation  ac¬ 
cords  excellently  with  the  use  of  dicturum  and  similar  forms  with¬ 
out  esse  and  (in  early  Latin)  with  a  Plural  subject,  e.g.  credo  iniini- 
cos  meos  hoc  dicturum ,  ‘  I  believe  my  enemies  are  for  saying  this,’ 
i.e.  ‘will  say  this  ’  (C.  Gracchus,  cited  by  Gellius,  i.  7).  After  the 
analogy  of  periphrastic  forms,  dicturum  esse  subsequently  supplanted 
dicturum ,  etc .,  and  thus  gave  rise  to  the  Future  Active  Participle 
in  - urus ,  -a,  -um. 

B.  Passive. 

246.  Present.  —  Such  forms  as  reg-i,  dic-i  are  Dative  forms ; 
§  139.  Other  verbs  append  the  Dative  ending  to  -<$\r-stems,  eg. 
amari,  mo  fieri,  audiri,  for  *ama-es-i,  etc. ;  so  ferri  for  *fer-s-i. 
Cf.  §  243.  No  Passive  signification  originally  attached  itself  to 
these  Dative  Infinitives ;  at  the  outset  they  could  not  have  differed 
essentially  from  the  Locative  Infinitives  of  the  Active.  The  dif¬ 
ferentiation  into  Active  and  Passive  meanings  was  purely  arbitrary. 

The  Passive  Infinitive  in  -ier  (archaic  and  poetical)  is  of  un¬ 
certain  origin.  Some  explain  agier,  for  example,  as  for  *agi-ar, 
ar  being  the  Preposition  seen  in  ar -biter,  etc.,  in  a  post-positive 
use.  On  -er  for  -ar,  see  §  71.  1.  Others  think  that  -^'repre¬ 
sents  the  apocopated  Active  ending  -ere.  This  seems  to  have 
been  fairly  frequent  in  colloquial  Latin,  eg.  biber  for  bibere ; 
tanger  for  tangere.  Agier,  therefore,  and  similar  forms  would 
represent  Passive  Infinitives  with  an  added  Active  termination. 


The  Infinitive. 


15  7 


247.  Perfect  and  Future.  —  Periphrastic  forms  are  used  here, 
e.g.  dictus  esse,  dictum  iri.  The  latter  consists  of  the  Supine  com¬ 
bined  with  the  Passive  of  ed  in  its  impersonal  use. 

The  Participles. 

248.  Present  Active.  —  The  suffix  here  is  -nt-,  eg.  -sens  for 
*-s-?it-s  (§  102.  1)  in  ab-sens,  prae-sens  ;  regens  for  *rege-nt-s. 
The  oblique  cases  of  tens  are  formed  from  the  stem  *ei-o-,  eg. 
euntis  for  *ei-o-ntis. 

249.  Future  Active.  — See  §  245. 

250.  Perfect  Passive.  —  The  suffix  was  -tus,  earlier  -tos,  ap¬ 
pended  originally  to  the  weak  form  of  the  root,  eg.  dic-tus,  duc¬ 
tus,  tentus  for  *tn-tos  (§  102.  1).  Where  the  root  ended  in  d  or 
t,  ss  or  s  arose  phonetically  (§  108.  1),  eg.  sessus  for  *sed-tos ; 
usus  for  *ut-tos.  By  an  extension  this  spurious  ending,  -sus, 
became  appended  also  to  some  guttural  and  liquid  stems,  eg. 
lap-sus,fixus ,  pulsus. 

251.  The  Gerundive. — The  origin  of  the  termination  - endus , 
-undus  is  not  yet  determined. 

Gerund  and  Supine. 

252.  1.  The  Gerund. — The  Gerund  is  probably  a  develop  ¬ 
ment  of  the  Gerundive.  Such  expressions  as  virtus  colenda  esi 

\ 

might  easily  give  rise  to  a  colendum  est  (impersonal),  while  simi¬ 
larly  patriae  defendendae  causa  might  generate  a  defendendi  causa. 

2.  The  Supine. — The  Supine  in  -um  is  an  Accusative  of  a 
Verbal  noun  formed  with  the  suffix  -tu- ;  the  Supine  in  -u  is  a 
Locative  from  the  same  stem  (c/.  §  163). 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


ADVERBS  AND  PREPOSITIONS. 

ADVERBS.1 

253.  Adverbs  are,  in  the  main,  case-forms  which  have  become 
stereotyped  as  the  result  of  highly  specialized  usage.  The  cases 
most  frequently  thus  employed  are  the  Accusative,  Ablative,  Loca¬ 
tive,  and  Instrumental. 

254.  Accusatives.  — These  result  from  various  syntactical  usages. 
Thus  : 

1.  Accusative  of  Result  Produced  ( Gr .  §  176.  2  ;  3),  e.g.  mul- 
tum ,  pTerumque ,  plurimum ,  aliquid ,  facile,  fortius,  etc. 

2.  Appositives,  e.g.  vice  in,  partim,  etc.;  §  310. 

3.  Limit  of  Motion,  e.g.  f orcis. 

255.  Ablatives.  —  Here  belong  : 

1.  Adverbs  in  -e  (for  -ed ;  §  130)  from  ^-sterns,  e.g.  pulchre , 
sane;  certissinie. 

2.  Adverbs  in  -0  (for  -od;  §  130)  from  ^-sterns,  e.g.  certo , 
continud.  Cf.  early  Latin  meritod. 

3.  Adverbs  in  -a  (for  -ad ;  §  118)  from  ^-sterns,  e.g.  extra , 
supra ,  infra,  contra,  supra,  ultra ,  citra,  juxta.  Cf.  early  Latin 
exstrad,  suprad.  Many  words,  clearly  Ablative  in  form,  appar¬ 
ently  became  Adverbs  through  the  medium  of  Instrumental  con¬ 
structions,  e.g.  una ,  recta,  qua,  ea,  eadem  ( sc .  via),  etc.  Cf. 
§  341-  5- 


1  See  especially  Lindsay,  Latin  Language,  chap.  ix. 

158 


Prepositions. 


159 


256.  Locatives.  —  Here  belong  : 

1.  True  Locatives,  e.g.  heri,  vesperi ,  hunii ,  belli,  militiae ,  do  ml, 
pos  tridie  (§§  126;  173),  me  r idle,  die  eras  tint ;  noctii ;  also  the 
Pronominal  Adverbs  hi-c,  illi-e ,  isti-c  (§  197). 

2.  Ablative  in  Locative  function,  e.g.  J oris. 

257.  Instrumentals.  —  Here  belong  : 

1.  cito ,  modo  for  *citb ,  *modo  (§  88.  3),  where  *-b  resulted 
by  contraction  from  *cito-d,  *modo-d.  Had  these  been  Ablative 
(pcitod,  *modod),  the  o  would  not  have  been  shortened  upon  the 
disappearance  of  the  -d. 

2.  bene ,  male  for  *  beiie,  *male  (§  88.  3),  where  *-e  resulted  by 
contraction  from  *bene-d ,  *male-a.  Had  these  been  Ablatives 
{*  belied,  *  mated'),  the  -e  would  not  have  been  shortened  upon 
the  disappearance  of  the  -d. 

3.  sponte,  forte,  repente. 

258.  Even  a  few  Nominatives  have  become  Adverbs,  e.g.  adver- 
sus  ;  riirsus  for  reversus  ;  prorsus  for  proversus. 

259.  Many  Adverbs  were  originally  phrases,  eg.  denuo  for 
de  novo  (§  103.  4)  ;  llico  for  in  *stloco  (§  89)  ;  admodum.  Some 
have  thought  that  Adverbs  in  -iter  also  belong  here,  eg.  breviter 
for  breve  iter,  etc.  Cf.  German  kurzweg. 

PREPOSITIONS.1 

260.  Prepositions  are  in  the  main  Adverbs  which  have  come  to 
have  special  uses  in  connection  with  certain  cases.  Historically 
they  belong  to  a  relatively  late  period  in  the  development  of  lan¬ 
guage.  Originally  the  cases  alone  sufficed  for  denoting  relations, 
but  as  greater  precision  became  necessary,  the  requisite  definite¬ 
ness  of  meaning  came  to  be  expressed  by  various  Adverbs,  which 


1  See  especially  Lindsay,  Latin  Language,  chap.  ix. 


160  Adverbs  and  Prepositions. 

ultimately  crystallized  as  Prepositions ;  yet  an  independent  adverb¬ 
ial  usage  often  remained. 

In  the  earlier  period  of  their  employment,  Prepositions  enjoyed 
considerably  more  latitude  of  usage  than  later,  being  freely  com¬ 
bined  with  almost  any  oblique  case  ;  ultimately,  however,  most  of 
them  became  restricted  to  combination  with  particular  cases. 
This  is  truer  of  Latin,  for  example,  than  of  Greek,  where  the  older 
freedom  is  quite  apparent.  The  Oscan  and  Umbrian  also  show 
greater  latitude  than  Latin. 

261.  A,  ab,  abs,  au-.  —  Three  historically  independent  words 
of  identical  meaning  are  here  to  be  recognized  : 

1.  A  is  identical  with  Sanskrit  a ,  West  Germanic  o. 

2.  Ab,  abs  go  back  to  an  Indo-European  *apo,  Greek  Saro. 
By  loss  of  the  final  o,  this  became  in  Latin  ap-,  seen  in  ap-e7'ib. 
But  in  composition  and  in  phrases  before  voiced  consonants  p 
became  b,  eg.  abdo  for  *ap-dd ;  ab  radice  for  %ap  radice ,  and 
ultimately  the  form  with  b  supplanted  that  with  p.  Abs  is  formed 
from  ab  by  appending  -s,  probably  the  Genitive  ending  in  its 
weak  form  (§  138),  an  element  frequently  employed  in  amplify¬ 
ing  prepositional  and  adverbial  formations.  Cf  ex  ( =  ec-s)  from 
ec- ;  sub-s  (in  suscipio  for  *sub-s-cipid ;  §  105.  1)  from  sub ;  obs- 
from  ob ;  also  Greek  by  the  side  of  Ik  ;  ivs,  whence  Attic  eh, 
by  the  side  of  ev  ;  a^h  by  the  side  of  d/x<£i'. 

3.  Au-,  Sanskrit  ava,  goes  back  to  an  Indo-European  ava. 
It  appears  in  Latin  only  in  aufugio,  and  aufero  for  *avafugib, 
*ava-ferb  by  Syncope  (§  92).  Cf.  auspex  for  *av{f)spex ;  augu- 
rium,  etc. 

4.  A  form  of  *apo,  with  aphaeresis  of  the  initial  consonant,  is 
po-,  seen  in  pond  for  *po-s(i)nb  (§§  92  ;  89)  ;  cf.  po-siius.  Po- 
also  possibly  appears  in  po-tio  (root  li- ;  cf.  li-nb),  ‘  rub  off,  polish.’ 

5.  A  form  af  found  in  early  inscriptions  and  occasionally  later, 
is  of  uncertain  origin.  It  is  probably  historically  distinct  from  all 
the  preceding  words. 


Prepositions. 


161 


262.  Ad  is  obscure  in  origin.  In  early  Latin  inscriptions  we 
find  a  form  ar -,  used  before  f  and  v  in  composition,  e.g.  arfuerunt , 
an>ersus ;  also  ar-biter.  Whether  ar-  was  a  phonetic  variant  of 
ad-,  or  a  different  word,  is  uncertain. 

263.  Ambi-,  Greek  d/A<£t,  is  probably  an  old  Locative. 

264.  Ante  for  *anti,  Greek  dj/rt,  is  probably  an  old  Locative. 

265.  Apud  seems  to  be  Indo-European  *apo  (§  261.  2)  with 
an  appended  d. 

266.  Circum,  circa,  circiter  are  all  connected  with  the  noun 
circus ,  ‘  ring,  circle,  circus  ’ ;  circum  is  the  Accusative  Singular, 
used  first  as  Adverb,  later  as  Preposition ;  circa  is  probably  a 
late  formation  after  the  analogy  of  exti'd,  supra  (§  255.  3). 
Circiter  probably  contains  the  Compaiiitive  suffix  -ter  (§  181). 
Cf.  inter ,  propter ,  sub  ter. 

267.  Cis,  citra  are  from  the  root  ci-,  1  this.’  On  the  final  of 
cis,  see  §  261.  2.  Citra  has  the  Comparative  suffix  (§  181).  On 
the  formation,  see  §  255.  3. 

268.  Clam  evidently  contains  the  root  of  celo ,  ‘  conceal.’  The 
formation  is  uncertain. 

269.  Com-  (cum),  co-.  — See  §  58.  b). 

270.  Contra.  —  See  §  255.  3. 

271.  De  may  be  an  old  Ablative  formation  for  *ded. 

272.  Erga,  ergo  are  obscure  in  etymology  and  formation. 
They  can  have  no  connection  with  Greek  (j:)epyov,  work. 

273.  Ex,  ec-,  ef-,  e.  See  §  105.  2.  On  the  final  s  of  ex 
(=  ec-s),  see  §  261.  2. 

274.  Extra  is  formed  from  ex  by  means  of  the  Comparative 
suffix  tero-  (§  181).  On  the  case-formation,  see  §  255.  3. 


i62 


Adverbs  and  Prepositions . 

275.  In  is  the  unaccented  form  of  Indo-European  *en,  Greek 
iv.  The  original  form  of  the  Preposition  is  seen  in  early  Latin 
en-do.  Cf.  Greek  zvho-Oi,  h-Sov.  Another  form  of  endo  is  indu- 
( 'indi -)  seen  in  indi-genus,  ind-oles,  and  in  several  early  Latin 
words,  e.g.  indu-gredi. 

276.  Infra.  Cf.  inferus,  and  see  §  255.  3. 

277.  Inter,  intra  are  formed  from  in  by  means  of  the  Com¬ 
parative  suffix  -tei'o- ;  §§  181  ;  255.  3. 

278.  Intus  contains  the  same  suffix  as  seen  in  divinitus,  fun- 
ditus,  etc. 

279.  Juxta  is  from  the  stem  juxta-,  a  Superlative  oijugis.  For 
the  case-form,  see  §  255.  3. 

280.  Ob  is  from  an  Indo-European  *op-i,  a  Locative  formation 
kindred  with  Greek  hr- 1,  to  which  it  stands  in  Ablaut  relation 
(§  62).  The  form  ob  has  developed  from  *op,  exactly  as  ab  from 
*ap  (§  261.  2) ;  yet  op-  appears  in  op-erio ,  and  is  preserved  in 
Oscan. 

281.  Per  is  for  an  Indo-European  *peri  (Locative).  Cf.  Greek 

irepL  " 

282.  Post,  early  Latin  poste,  apparently  goes  back  to  a  Locative 
*posti. 

283.  Prae,  praeter.  —  Prae  is  very  likely  a  Locative  from  pra -, 
an  extension  of  pr-  (weak  form  of  per-).  Cf.  pro(d)  from  pro-. 
Praeter  bears  the  same  relation  to  prae  as  inter  to  in ;  subter 
to  sub. 

284.  Pro,  pro-,  por-.  —  The  relation  between  pro  and  pro-  (e.g. 
in  profugioi  proficiscor ,  protego)  is  uncertain.  Very  likely  pro 
(earlier  prod,  seen  in  prodesse,  pro d ire ;  §  109.  1)  was  an  Ablative 
formation,  while  pro-  (cf.  Gr.  7 rpo)  represents  the  simple  stem. 
Por-,  e.g.  in  por-tendo,  porrigo,  polliceor  (for  *por-liceor)  may  rep- 


Prepositions .  163 

resent  pr -,  weak  form  of  the  root  per-  (§  100.  2),  with  which  all 
the  above  words  are  ultimately  connected. 

285.  Prope,  propter.  —  Prope  is  for  pro+pe.  Cf.  quip-pe . 
Propter  bears  the  same  relation  to  pt‘ope  as  inter  to  in,  etc . 

286.  Re-,  red-.  —  Re-  is  the  earlier  form ;  the  d  of  red-  is  of 
uncertain  origin. 

287.  Secundum  is  an  Accusative  from  secundus ,  lit.  ‘  following  ’ 
( sequor ) . 

288.  Se-,  early  Latin  sed-,  preserved  in  seditio,  may  have  been 
an  Ablative  formation ;  so-,  seen  in  sd-cors,  so-brius ,  may  repre¬ 
sent  the  Ablaut  of  se-. 

289.  Sub,  subter. — The  Indo-European  form  is  *upo.  Cf. 
Greek  v-no  (with  irregular  rough  breathing).  The  initial  is 
explained  as  containing  a  reduced  form  of  ex,  viz.  ’ks,  so  that 
*{]z)sup  would  represent  the  primitive  formation.  For  the  change 
of p  to  b ,  see  §  261.  2.  On  subter,  cf.  inter. 

290.  Super,  supra.  —  Super  goes  back  to  an  Indo-European 
*uper.  Cf.  Greek  virlp  (with  irregular  rough  breathing).  For  the 
initial  s,  see  §  289.  Supra  sustains  the  same  relation  to  super  as 
infra  to  inter. 

291.  Tenus  is  probably  the  Accusative  of  an  obsolete  tenus, 
- eris ,  lit.  ‘  a  stretch/  root  ten-. 

292.  Trans  is  probably  the  Present  Participle  of  *trare  seen  in 
intrare,  penetrare,  i.e.  originally  trans  flltmen  milifes  duxit  meant 
he  led  his  fro  ops,  crossing  the  river.  On  fra-,  see  §  103.  2. 

293.  Uls,  ultra  from  root  ol-,  ‘that’  ( cf .  olle ;  §  195),  are  the 
pendants  to  cis,  citra. 

294.  Versus,  versum,  etc.  —  See  §  258. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


SYNTAX.1 

THE  CASES. 

Names  of  the  Cases. 

295.  The  English  word  case  comes  from  the  Latin  casus ,  which 
was  a  translation  of  the  Greek  word  7 hwis.  -mwis  (from  ttUtw, 
fall),  as  a  grammatical  term,  primarily  denoted  a  ‘change’  or  ‘de¬ 
viation,’  and  was  accordingly  first  employed  to  denote  the  oblique 
cases,  as  being  ‘  deviations  ’  (7n-wcms)  from  the  Nominative.  The 
Nominative  itself,  therefore,  was  not  at  the  outset  a  7nwi?,  though 
it  early  came  to  bear  this  name. 

- _  \ 

296.  The  Greek  names  of  the  cases  were  : 

ovo/xacrTLKrj  ( sc .  7TTO icris),  Nominative. 
y enKrj,  Genitive. 

SoTLKr),  Dative. 
alTLaTLKr),  Accusative. 
kXtjtlk'i 7,  Vocative. 


1  See  especially  Brugmann  und  Delbriick,  Grundriss  der  Vergleichenden 
Grammatik,  vol.  iii.  ( Vergleichende  Syntax ,  von  Delbriick),  Erster  Theil. 
Strassburg,  1893.  Drciger,  Ilistorische  Syntax  der  Lateinischen  Sprache,  2  vols. 
2cl  edition.  Leipzig,  1878,  1881.  Kiihner,  Atisfiihrliche  Grammatik  der 
Lateinischen  Sprache,  vol.  ii.  Hannover,  1878.  Schmalz,  in  MUller’s  Hand- 
buch  der  Klassischen  A Itertiunszvissenschaft,  vol.  ii.  2d  edition.  Nordlingen, 
1889.  Riemann,  La  Syntax e  Latine.  3d  edition.  Paris,  1894.  Roby,  Latin 
Gramrfiar ,  vol.  ii.  5th  edition.  London,  1888. 

164 


Names  of  the  Cases.  ,  165 

The  Nominative  was  so  called  because  it  was  the  case  employed 
for  naming  a  substantive  when  it  was  simply  cited  as  a  word. 

The  significance  of  the  term  y eva<r)  is  in  dispute.  Some  have 
thought  it  meant  ‘  the  case  of  source  or  origin.’  But  the  usual 
meaning  of  y cvlko<s  is  against  this  view.  It  probably  meant  ‘  the 
case  of  the  genus,’  or  ‘  the  generic  case.’  This  view  accords  with 
the  regular  use  of  the  Genitive  to  restrict  the  meaning  of  another 
word  by  denoting  the  class  or  yei/os  to  which  it  applies,  e.g.  love 
of  parents ,  * fishers  of  men ,’  tons  of  earth. 

The  Dative  was  called  Sotlkt],  ‘  the  case  of  giving,’  though  this 
is  simply  one  prominent  function  of  the  case. 

In  calling  the  Accusative  aman/07,  the  Greeks  intended  to 
designate  this  case  as  the  ‘  case  of  effect,’  i.e.  of  the  thing  caused 
(  cut  fa) .  Here  again  the  name  designated  but  imperfectly  the 
functions  of  the  case.  For  the  Accusative  indicates  also  the 
person  or  thing  affected,  to  say  nothing  of  other  uses. 

K\r)Tu<r/  means  ‘  calling  case  ’  or  ‘  case  of  address.’ 

V 

297.  The  Romans  in  devising  grammatical  terms  for  their  own 
language  simply  translated  these  Greek  names,  ovo/xcuttikt/  became 
Nominativus  {sc.  casus).  In  translating  yevixr)  by  Genetivus  the 
Roman  grammarians  falsely  interpreted  the  case  as  that  of  source , 
or  origin,  misled  doubtless  by  the  frequent  use  of  the  Greek 
Genitive  in  that  function.  Sort/oy  became  Dativus.  amcm/ay  was 
falsely  rendered  Accusativus ,  as  though  aman/oy  were  derived 
from  amao/uu,  accuse.  kX^tikt)  became  Vocativus.  The  Greek 
had  no  Ablative,  and  for  this  case  the  Romans  were  therefore 
obliged  to  coin  a  new  term ;  they  named  it  Ahlafivus ,  1  the  case 
of  taking  away.’  This  designation  was  fairly  accurate  for  certain 
uses  of  the  case,  viz.  those  of  the  true  Ablative  ;  but  it  ignored 
the  Instrumental  and  Locative  uses  of  the  case  (§331)-  It  is 
uncertain  just  when  and  by  whom  these  Latin  names  were  intro¬ 
duced.  They  had  become  established  as  current  terms  by  Quin¬ 
tilian’s  time  (90  a.d.). 


Syntax. 


1 66 


Review  of  Case-Theories. 

298.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  there  has 
been  much  discussion  concerning  the  original  force  of  the  cases 
both  individually  and  collectively. 

299.  The  Localistic  Theory.  — The  chief  representative  of  this 
was  Hartung,  who  set  forth  his  views  in  1831  in  a  work  Ueber  die 
Casus,  ihre  Bildung  und  Bedeutung.  Hartung  started  with  the 
assumption  (largely  a  correct  one)  that  in  language  the  develop¬ 
ment  is  from  the  concrete  to  the  abstract,  —  that  words  at  the 
outset  indicated  definite  sense  concepts,  which  later  came  to  be 
used  in  transferred  meanings.  Applying  this  principle  to  the 
cases,  he  assumed  that  in  Greek  and  Latin  there  had  been  (in 
addition  to  the  Nominative  and  Vocative)  three  cases,  one  to 
designate  each  of  the  three  definite  local  relatives,  from,  in,  and 
to.  Applying  this  principle  first  to  Greek  he  explained  the  Geni¬ 
tive  as  the  from- case,  the  Dative  as  the  in-c ase,  the  Accusative  as 
the  to- case.  For  Latin,  substantially  the  same  explanation  was 
given,  except  that  the  Dative  of  the  Greek  has  in  Latin,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Hartung,  been  differentiated  into  two  cases,  Dative  and 
Ablative,  of  which  the  latter  has  entirely  absorbed  the  /^-function, 
while  the  Dative  has  developed  new  meanings. 

Hartung’s  theory  has  been  styled  4  thorough-going  ’  Localism. 
It  asserted  that  the  original  Indo-European  case-system  (apart 
from  Nominative  and  Vocative)  had  originally  been  limited  to 
three  cases,  which  expressed  the  three  natural  space  relations. 
Wherever  in  the  individual  languages  more  cases  appeared  (as  in 
Latin  or  Sanskrit),  these  were  held  to  be  differentiations  (p  Zer- 
splitterungen  ’)  of  the  original  three.  Whatever  may  be  true  of 
the  meaning  of  individual  cases,  comparative  grammar  conclu¬ 
sively  proves  that  Localism  in  the  form  in  which  Hartung  held  it 
is  absolutely  untenable.  A  case-system  of  at  least  six  clearly 
distinguished  oblique  cases  must  have  existed  in  the  Indo-Euro¬ 
pean  parent- speech. 


Review  of  Case-Theories .  167 

300.  The  Logical  Theory.  —  Michelsen,  in  his  Casuslehre  der 
lateimschen  Sprache  vom  causal-localen  Standpuncte  aus ,  pub¬ 
lished  in  1843,  endeavored  to  apply  logical  categories  to  the 
explanation  of  the  cases.  According  to  him  two  principles  are 
fundamental:  1)  Causality  (including  cause  and  effect).  2)  Final¬ 
ity.  Hence  in  every  sentence,  he  holds,  we  must  have  a  cause,  an 
effect,  and  a  purpose.  The  Nominative  he  regarded  as  the  case 
expressing  the  cause,  the  Accusative  the  case  of  the  effect,  the 
Dative  as  the  case  of  finality  or  purpose.  The  Genitive  and 
Ablative  were  also  given  special  treatment,  though  these  cases 
were  regarded  as  not  essential  to  logical  completeness.  But 
Michelsen’s  theory  is  false  in  principle.  Language  is  not  founded 
on  logic,  and  any  attempt  to  explain  forms  of  speech  as  primarily 
identical  with  logical  categories  must  always  be  fruitless. 

301.  The  Grammatical  Theory.  —  In  1845  appeared  Rumpel’s 
Casuslehre  in  besonderer  Beziehung  auf  die  griechische  Sprache. 
This  book  was  a  protest  against  the  Localism  of  Hartung  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  logical  theory  of  Michelsen  on  the  other. 
Rumpel  asserted  the  purely  grammatical  character  of  the  cases. 
The  Nominative  he  defined  as  the  case  of  the  Subject,  the  Accu¬ 
sative  as  the  case  used  to  complete  the  meaning  of  the  verb,  the 
Genitive  as  the  adnominal  case  or  case  used  to  complete  the 
meaning  of  a  noun,  while  the  Dative  was  used  to  modify  the 
meaning  of  the  sentence  as  a  whole.  Where  the  Genitive  limited 
a  verb,  it  was  explained  as  denoting  an  internal  relation  as  opposed 
to  an  external  relation,  such  as  that  denoted  by  the  Accusative. 
As  Rumpel  concerned  himself  only  with  Greek,  he  propounded 
no  theory  of  the  Ablative. 

302.  Subsequent  Views.  —  Rumpel’s  theory  shows  much  better 
method  than  either  Hartung’s  or  Michelsen’s.  Yet  the  gram¬ 
matical  theory  of  the  cases  is  not  universally  true.  Discussion 
since  Rumpel’s  day  has  shown  that  while  some  of  the  cases  are 


Syntax. 


1 68 

undoubtedly  grammatical  in  their  origin,  others  were  just  as  cer¬ 
tainly  local.  To  the  Grammatical  cases  belong  with  certainty  the 
Nominative  and  the  Genitive,  the  former  as  the  case  of  the  sub¬ 
ject,  the  latter  as  the  adnominal  case.  To  the  local  cases  belong 
with  certainty  the  Ablative,  as  the  from- case,  the  Locative,  as  the 
in- case,  and  the  Instrumental,  as  the  case  denoting  associaiio?t 
with.  Diversity  of  opinion  still  exists  as  to  the  Dative  and  to 
some  slight  extent  as  regards  the  Accusative.  If  we  regard  the 
Dative  as  originally  the  case  of  direction ,  it  is  a  local  case ;  if  we 
take  it  as  originally  used  to  modify  the  sentence  as  a  whole,  it.  is  a 
grammatical  case.  The  Accusative  is  usually  regarded  as  simply 
completing  the  meaning  of  the  verb,  and  is  therefore  classified  as 
a  grammatical  case;* but  there  is  some  warrant  for  considering  it 
as  originally  denoting  the  goal  of  motion ,  in  which  case  it  would 
be  local.  See  §311. 

The  Accusative.1 

303.  The  distinction  between  the  Accusative  of  the  Person  or 
Thing  Affected  ( Gr .  §  175)  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Accusative 
of  the  Result  Produced  (Gr.  §  176)  on  the  other,  is  one  of  funda¬ 
mental  importance.  Other  designations  are  often  employed  to 
distinguish  the  two  types.  Thus  the  Accusative  of  the  Person  or 
Thing  Affected  is  called  External  Object,  the  Accusative  of  Result 
Produced  the  Internal  Object.  But  these  designations  are  likely 
to  prove  too  philosophical  for  elementary  pupils.  German  scholars 
employ  also  the  designations  ‘  Akkusativ  des  Affekts  ’  and  *  Akku- 
sativ  des  Effekts ,’  terms  which  might  be  advantageously  imitated 
in  English,  if  our  language  only  had  the  noun  Affect.  When  the 
Greek  philosophers  gave  the  name  alTiaTtKrj  to  the  Accusative, 
they  had  in  mind  only  the  second  of  the  two  uses  of  the  Accusa¬ 
tive  now  under  consideration,  viz.  the  Accusative  of  the  Result 
Produced  or,  as  they  designated  it,  of  the  Thing  Caused  (‘  Internal 


1  For  the  original  force  of  the  Accusative,  see  §  31 1. 


The  Accusative . 


169 


Object,’  ‘Effect’).  The  Romans,  in  transferring  the  Greek  name 
of  the  case  to  Latin,  should  have  rendered  it  by  some  such  word 
as  Causativus  (a  designation  actually  employed  by  Priscian)  or 
Effectivus .  Either  of  these  would,  like  the  Greek  original,  have 
been  a  defective  name  {cf.  §  296),  but  it  would  have  been  accu¬ 
rate  as  far  as  it  went. 

304.  The  Accusative  with  Passives  used  as  Middles. — The 
treatment  of  the  Accusative  after  Passive  Verbs  in  Gr.  §  175.  2.  d) 
is  based  on  the  elaborate  discussions  of  Schroder,  Der  Accusativ 
iiach  Passiven  Verben  in  der  Lateinischen  Dichtersprache ,  Gross- 
glogau,  1870;  Engelhardt,  Passive  Verba  mit  dem  Accusativ , 
Bromberg,  1879  ;  an<^  the  treatment  of  Ktihner  in  his  Ausfuhr- 
liche  Lateinische  Grammatik ,  ii.  §  71.  b).  The  explanation  of  the 
Accusative  as  Synecdochical  {cf.  Gr.  §  180),  which  is  sometimes 
given  for  this  construction,  is  not  adequate.  It  might  explain 
such  phrases  as  cinctus  tempora  hedera ,  but  is  irrational  for  galeam 
induitur ,  no  do  sinus  colic  eta,  laevo  suspensi  loculos  lacerto ,  and 
many  others.  On  the  other  hand,  the  interpretation  of  the  Pas¬ 
sive  in  such  instances  as  a  Middle,  and  the  Accusative  as  the 
Direct  Object,  furnishes  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  all  phrases  of 
this  type. 

Sometimes  by  an  extension  of  usage  the  Middle  is  employed  to 
indicate  that  the  subject  lets  some  action  be  consummated  upon 
himself,  or  has  it  done.  Cf.  English  he  had  his  hair  cut.  An 
illustration  of  this  is  Vergil,  Aen.  ii.  273  per  pedals  trajectus  lora, 
‘having  had  thongs  drawn  through  his  feet.’  For  a  few  instances 
in  which  a  Synecdochical  Accusative  occurs  with  Passive  verbs, 
see  §  307. 

305.  Accusative  of  Result  Produced.  —  The  different  construc¬ 
tions  grouped  together  under  Gr.  §  176.  1-5,  are  often  referred 
to  the  Cognate  Accusative  as  the  original  from  which  they  have 
all  developed.  The  Cognate  Accusative,  however,  is  so  restricted 


Syntax. 


170 

in  its  scope  that  it  seems  better  to  regard  it  as  a  subdivision  of  a 
larger  category  rather  than  as  the  basis  of  such  a  category.  Cf. 
Brugmann,  Griechische  Grammatik 2,  §  178.  2,  who  classifies 
tvtttclv  zXkos  ( strike  a  wound ,  i.e.  produce  a  wound  by  striking) 
and  vlkolv  vlkyjv,  win  a  victory ,  as  parallel  subdivisions  of  the  gen¬ 
eral  category  of  the  Accusative  with  Verbs  of  producing. 

306.  Accusative  of  Person  Affected  and  of  Result  Produced 
Dependent  upon  the  Same  Verb  (Gr.  §  178).  —  The  true  char¬ 
acter  of  this  construction  is  best  seen  in  phrases  where  the  Accu¬ 
sative  of  Result  is  a  Neuter  Pronoun  or  Adjective,  e.g.  te  haec  rogo , 
id  me  doces,  the  essential  point  being  that  the  Latin  was  able  not 
only  to  say  id  doccs  (Acc.  of  Result)  and  me  doccs  (Acc.  of  Per¬ 
son  Affected),  but  to  combine  the  two  constructions  in  a  single 
phrase.  It  is  a  misconception  to  regard  the  Accusative  of  Result 
in  such  sentences  as  any  less  the  Direct  Object  than  the  Accusa¬ 
tive  of  the  Person  Affected.  Each  of  the  two  Accusatives  is  a 
Direct  Object  equally  with  the  other.  There  is  no  essential  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  construction  of  haec  in  haec  me  rogas  and  the 
construction  of  haec  in  haec  rogas.  In  many  instances  the  Accu¬ 
sative  of  Result  with  verbs  of  asking ,  teaching ,  etc.,  is  clearly  of 
secondary  origin,  e.g.  te  sententiam  rogo,  after  te  hoc  rogo ;  te 
celavi  sermonem  after  te  id  celavi. 

307.  The  Synecdochical  or  Greek  Accusative  (Gr.  §  180).— 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  construction  is  a  Grecism.  Cf. 
Quintilian,  ix.  3.  17.  Some  have  claimed  it  as  a  genuine  Latin 
idiom,  but  its  almost  total  restriction  to  the  poets  of  the  imperial 
age  and  to  the  prose  writers  who  imitate  them  is  against  any  such 
theory.  The  names  ‘  Accusative  of  Specification  ’  and  ‘  Accusa¬ 
tive  of  Respect  ’  are  sometimes  used  to  designate  this  construction. 

With  Passive  verbs  the  Accusative  usually  belongs  under  Gr. 
§  175.  2.  d),  but  in  some  twenty  instances  in  the  Augustan  poets 
and  in  about  twice  that  number  in  Lucan,  Silius,  Statius,  and 


The  Accusative. 


171 

Valerius  Flaccus,  we  must  recognize  the  Synecdochical  Accusative. 
A  typical  instance  is,  Vergil,  Aen.  ii.  57,  manus  juvenem  post  terga 
revinctum ,  ‘  tied  as  to  his  hands.’ 

308.  Accusative  in  Exclamations.  —  This  construction  is  appar¬ 
ently  the  result  of  ellipsis.  Just  what  verb  is  to  be  supplied  in 
thought  in  particular  instances  is  not  always  clear,  nor  is  it  mate¬ 
rial  that  it  should  be  determined. 

309.  The  Accusative  as  Subject  of  the  Infinitive.  —  The  Accu¬ 
sative  as  Subject  of  the  Infinitive  is  an  outgrowth  of  the  use  of 
the  Accusative  as  Direct  Object.  The  history  of  the  construction 
may  be  illustrated  as  follows  :  In  an  expression  like  jus  si  eum 
ablre ,  eum  was  originally  the  object  of  jussi,  while  the  Infinitive 
was  a  noun  in  the  Locative  (§  243),  the  force  of  the  entire  phrase 
being  :  I  ordered  him  to  a  going  (§  351).  But  in  course  of  time 
the  eum  abire  came  to  be  felt  as  a  whole  and  as  sustaining  an 
object  relation  to  the  verb,  a  conception  which  led  to  such  expres¬ 
sions  as  jussit  puei'bs  necari ,  where  pueros  could  never  have  been 
the  object  of  jussit.  When  once  the  construction  of  the  Accusa¬ 
tive  with  the  Infinitive  became  established,  its  extension  was 
rapid.  Expressions  like  jussit  pueros  necari  easily  led  to  dixi 
pueros  necatos  esse ,  whence  pueri  nccati  esse  dicebantur  and  other 
types  of  Infinitive  usage. 

310.  Id  genus,  muliebre  secus,  etc. —  1.  Id  genus  is  clearly 
appositional  in  origin,  as  indicated  by  the  fact  that  it  never  occurs 
except  in  combination  with  a  Nominative  or  Accusative,  i.e.  never 
virorum  id  genus ,  but  always,  eg.  viri  id  genus ,  viros  id  genus ,  etc. 

2.  Muliebre  secus,  virile  secus,  while  doubtless  of  the  same 
origin  as  id.  genus ,  have  nevertheless  advanced  a  stage  beyond  it 
in  actual  use.  We  find  not  only  liberi  muliebre  secus ,  ‘children  of 
the  female  sex,’  lit.  ‘children,  the  female  sex’  (of  children),  but 
also  liberorum  (liberis)  muliebre  secus. 

3.  Meam  vicem,  tuam  vicem,  etc.  —  The  appositional  origin  of 


Syntax. 


172 

this  phrase  seems  to  be  indicated  by  such  early  Latin  usages  as 
Plautus,  Mostellaria  ii.  1.8  qui  hodie  sese  excruciari  meant  vicem 
possit  pa  ft,  1  who  can  let  himself  be  tortured,  as  my  substitute  ’ ; 
Captivi  697  ut  eum  remittat  nostrum  ambdrum  vicem ,  ‘to  release 
him  in  return  for  us  two,’  lit.  ‘  as  an  exchange  for  us  two.’ 

4.  Magnam  partem,  maximam  partem.  —  The  appositional 
origin  of  these  phrases  is  less  certain,  yet  expressions  like  Livy, 
v.  14  and  ix.  37.  9  maximam  partem  ad  arma  trepidanfes  caedes 
oppressit ,  seem  to  point  in  that  direction. 

311.  Original  Force  of  the  Accusative  Case.  —  Rumpel  in  his 
Casuslehre ,  published  in  1845  (cf.  §  301),  contended  that  the 
Accusative  served  simply  as  the  complement  of  the  verb,  and  that 
all  the  varieties  of  meaning,  such  as  limit  of  motion,  duration  of 
time,  direct  object,  etc.,  are  but  varieties  of  this  primary  function. 
Rumpel  accordingly  regarded  the  Accusative  as  a  grammatical 
case,  and  this  view  has  been  maintained  by  most  subsequent 
scholars.  It  is  advocated  to-day  by  all  the  leading  authorities, 
e.g.  Delbriick,  Brugmann,  Hiibschmann,  Holzweissig,  Gadicke, 
and  others.  This  theory,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  both  simple  and 
rational.  Yet  there  have  always  been  some  scholars  who  have 
recognized  the  goal-notion  as  represehting  the  original  force  of 
the  Accusative.  While  it  is  impossible  to  prove  the  truth  of  this 
latter  theory,  yet  the  arguments  in  its  favor  deserve  consideration. 
They  are  the  following  : 

1.  The  antecedent  probability  of  the  existence  of  a  case  denot¬ 
ing  to  a  place,  person,  or  thing,  is  very  great.  It  is  admitted  that 
the  parent-speech  had  an  in- case  (the  Locative)  and  a  from- case 
(the  Ablative),  so  that  a  ^-case  might  naturally  be  expected  as 
the  complement  of  these. 

2.  There  are  advantages  in  starting  with  a  concrete,  tangible 
meaning  for  the  Accusative.  Language  undeniably  develops  from 
the  concrete  to  the  abstract. 

3.  The  goal- notion  is  shown  by  the  testimony  of  those  Indo- 


The  Accusative. 


173 


European  languages  whose  literature  reaches  furthest  back,  to 
have  been  an  extremely  primitive  force  of  this  case.  Thus 
Sanskrit  and  Homeric  Gneek  exhibit  the  goal- meaning  of  the 
Accusative,  while  the  vestiges  of  it  in  Latin  indicate  that  in  pre¬ 
historic  times  it  had  been  more  frequent.  Thus  the  use  of  town 
names,  and  of  do  mum  ^  domos ,  rus,  to  denote  the  goat  of  motion, 
and  the  occurrence  of  such  expressions  as  exsequias  ire ,  infitids 
ire ,  pessum  dare ,  venum  dare ,  point  to  a  freer  use  of  the  same 
kind  in  early  times.  The  Supine  in  -um  also  shows  this  primitive 
force.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  post-Homeric  Greek  this  goal- use 
of  the  Accusative  had  become  obsolete.  Post-Homeric  Greek 
stands  upon  the  same  ground  as  Latin  in  this  respect.  In  both  of 
these  languages  the  practical  disappearance  of  the  goal- notion  in 
historical  times  would  seem  to  indicate  that  as  other  uses  de¬ 
veloped  the  original  function  gradually  passed  away. 

4.  The  othqr  uses  of  the  Accusative  may  all  be  satisfactorily 
derived  from  the  goal- use  as  the  original  one.  As  the  first  and 
most  obvious  developments  must  be  considered  the  Accusative  of 
Extent  of  Space  and  of  Duration  of  Time.  Thus  viginti  milia 
processit  would  originally  have  meant  ‘  he  advanced  to  the  limit  of 
twenty  miles/  whence  arose  secondarily  the  notion  of  extent. 
Similarly  viginti  annos  vixit  would  have  meant  originally  ‘  he  lived 
to  the  limit  of  twenty  years,’  whence  secondarily  ‘he  lived  through¬ 
out  twenty  years.’  In  the  case  of  the  Direct  Object  the  Accusative 
may  also  have  originally  designated  the  limit  of  the  action  of  the 
verb.  Thus  aedes  struxit  would  originally  have  meant  ‘  he  per¬ 
formed  an  act  of  building,  the  goal  of  which  was  a  house.’  Sim¬ 
ilarly  video  hominem ,  ‘  I  perform  an  act  of  seeing,  the  goal  of 
which  is  a  man.’  Cf.  the  similar  idiom  prevalent  in  certain  Ro¬ 
mance  languages,  e.g.  Spanish  yo  veo  al  hombre ,  lit.  ‘  I  see,  to  the 
man’  =  ‘I  see  the  man.’  The  so-called  Accusative  of  Specifica¬ 
tion,  which,  so  far  as  it  appears  in  Latin,  is  apparently  a  Grecism 
(§  307),  would  be  the  least  obvious  development  of  the  goal- 
notion.  Yet  expressions  like  umeros  similis  ded,  lit.  ‘  like  a  god 


i74 


Syntax. 


as  to  the  shoulders,’  may  be  explained  as  originally  meaning 
‘looking  to  the  shoulders,’  ‘  as  regards  the  shoulders,’  i.e.  the 
shoulders  are  conceived  as  the  thought  limit  to  which  the  state¬ 
ment  is  referred. 


*  The  Dative. 

312.  The  Dative  probably  originally  designated  motion  towai'ds , 
motion  in  the  d&ection  of.  It  was  accordingly  a  localistic  case. 
Some,  however,  as  Delbriick,  regard  it  as  a  grammatical  case,  and 
think  that  originally  it  was  a  mere  sentence  modifier,  very  much 
like  the  so-called  Dative  of  Reference.  But  it  is  much  more  dif¬ 
ficult  to  develop  the  notion  of  direction  from  the  force  of  the 
Dative  as  a  sentence  modifier  than  vice  versa  ;  Brugmann  ( Grie- 
chische  Grammatik ,2  §  175)  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  notion 
of  direction  in  the  Dative  is  as  old  as  the  parent-speech ;  if  so,  it 
seems  simpler  to  assume  this  concreter  meaning  as  the  original 
one.  In  that  case  the  poetical  construction  of  the  Dative  to 
denote  direction  of  motion  ( Gr.  §  193)  would  represent  the 
original  meaning  of  the  case. 

313.  Dative  of  Indirect  Object.  —  The  Dative  of  Indirect  Object 
is  a  very  obvious  development  of  the  notion  of  direction ,  just  as¬ 
sumed  as  the  original  meaning  of  the  Dative  case.  Thus  tibi  hoc 
died ,  ‘  I  tell  you  this,’  would  originally  have  meant  ‘  I  tell  this  in 
your  direction  ’ ;  so  tibi  ignosco,  ‘  I  pardon  you  ’ ;  ruina  nvbis 
impendet ,  ‘  ruin  threatens  us.’ 

314.  Indirect  Object  with  Verbs  signifying  ‘  Favor/  ‘  Help,’  etc. — 

It  is  a  common  conception  that  the  Latin  is  peculiar  in  con- 
♦  struing  many  verbs  of  these  meanings  with  the  Dative ;  but  this 
impression  is  erroneous,  and  largely  due  to  the  loss  of  inflections 
in  English,  whereby  the  original  distinction  between  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  Dative  and  Accusative  has  become  obliterated,  so  that  the 
English  ‘  Objective’  is  commonly  felt  as  an  Accusative. 


The  Dative. 


175 


As  a  matter  of  fact  many  verbs  of  the  category  under  consider¬ 
ation  were  intransitive  in  Anglo-Saxon  and  in  Teutonic  generally, 
and  accordingly  governed  the  Dative  case.  Modern  German 
gives  clear  illustration  of  this.  Cf.  e.g.  ichglaube  Ilmen,  ich  verzeihe 
Ilmen ,  ich  traue  I  linen,  ich  helfe  Ihnen.  Latin,  therefore,  does 
not  differ  from  English  and  the  other  Teutonic  languages  in  tak¬ 
ing  the  Dative  with  these  verbs ;  on  the  other  hand  there  is  a  strik¬ 
ing  agreement,  when  we  come  to  examine  the  matter  from  the 
historical  point  of  view. 

315.  The  Indirect  Object  with  Compound  Verbs.  —  It  is  a  mis¬ 
conception  to  suppose  that  the  mere  fact  of  composition  with 
certain  prepositions  was  the  occasion  of  the  employment  of  the 
Dative  case.  Prepositions  when  prefixed  to  neuter  verbs  often 
essentially  modify  the  previous  character  of  the  verb.  Some¬ 
times  they  make  the  verb  transitive  ( i.e .  the  verb  becomes  transi¬ 
tive),  and  it  then  governs  the  Accusative  {eg.  imre  magistratum. 
Cf.  Gr.  175.  2.  a).  More  frequently  a  neuter  verb,  when  com¬ 
pounded  with  a  preposition,  becomes  only  so  far  modified  in 
meaning  as  to  admit  an  indirect  object,  not  a  direct  one,  eg. 
periculis  incur r it.  But  the  use  of  the  Dative  should  be  referred 
not  to  the  fact  of  composition,  but  to  the  meaning  of  the  verb. 
Least  of  all  should  the  Dative  be  regarded  as  depending  upon  the 
preposition,  —  an  error  often  propagated  in  the  minds  of  elemen¬ 
tary  pupils. 

316.  The  Dative  of  Reference  is  an  outgrowth  of  the  original 
notion  of  direction  belonging  to  the  Dative.  It  is  a  somewhat  less 
obvious  development  than  the  Dative  of  Indirect  Object,  repre¬ 
senting  as  it  does  a  somewhat  weaker  relation.  Thus  in  a 
sentence  like  nobis  hostes  in  conspectum  venerant,  the  Dative  rep¬ 
resents  the  direction  of  the  thought  as  a  whole  rather  than  of  the 
action  indicated  by  the  verb.  The  name  ‘  Dative  of  Interest  ’ 
sometimes  applied  to  this  construction  is  somewhat  narrower  in 


Syntax. 


1 76 

scope  than  ‘  Dative  of  Reference,’  and  hence  is  less  satisfactory. 
The  subdivision  of  this  construction  into'  ‘  Dative  of  Advantage  ’ 
and  ‘  Dative  of  Disadvantage  ’  is  quite  useless.  These  designa¬ 
tions  obscure  the  real  character  of  the  construction,  calling  atten¬ 
tion,  as  they  do,  to  what  is  merely  accidental.  A  division  of  the 
Accusative  of  Direct  Object  into  ‘Accusative  of  Advantage  ’  and 
‘  Accusative  of  Disadvantage  ’  would  be  equally  justified. 

317.  The  Ethical  Dative.  —  This  is  simply  a  special  phase  of 
the  Dative  of  Reference,  and  is  entitled  to  recognition  as  a  sepa¬ 
rate  category  only  because  it  represents  the  Dative  in  its  most 
attenuated  force,  —  often,  in  fact,  quite  untranslatable.  It  is  con¬ 
fined  to  the  Personal  Pronouns. 

318.  Dative  of  Agency;  Dative  of  Possession.  —  These  are 

both  developments  of  the  Dative  of  Reference.  Thus  haec  mihi 
agenda  sunt  originally  meant  ‘  this  is  to  be  done  and  it  is  with 
reference  me  that  this  is  true,’  i.e.  ‘I  must  do  this.’  Similarly 
nobis  sunt  agri  originally  meant  ‘  there  are  lands,  and  it  is  of 
us  that  this  is  true,’  i.e.  ‘  we  have  lands.’ 

319.  Dative  of  Purpose.  —  This,  like  the  Dative  of  Indirect 
Object,  is  a  perfectly  obvious  development  of  the  original  notion 
of  direction  belonging  to  the  Dative.  Thus  receptui  canere ,  ‘  to 
sound  the  signal  for  a  retreat,’  was  originally  ‘  to  sound  the  signal 
in  the  direction  of  a  retreat  ’ ;  ret  publicae  cladi  sunt  similarly 
meant  ‘  they  are  in  the  direction  of  damage  to  the  state.’ 

«• 

The  Genitive. 

320.  The  Genitive  is  best  regarded  as  primarily  an  adnominal 
case,  i.e.  as  originally  used  with  nouns  to  define  their  meaning 
more  closely.  It  is  therefore  a  grammatical,  as  opposed  to  a 
local,  case.  The  use  of  the  Genitive  with  verbs  must  be  regarded 
as  secondary,  and  as  developed  from  its  use  with  nouns  by  some 
association  or  analogy. 


The  Genitive. 


1 77 


321.  Genitive  with  Nouns.  —  The  special  kind  of  closer  deter¬ 
mination  expressed  by  the  Genitive,  depends  upon  the  context. 
There  was  no  one  type  from  which  the  others  developed,  but  all 
of  the  varieties  enumerated  in  Gr.  §  195  (excepting  the  Genitive 
of  Quality)  are  equally  primitive.  Most  of  these  call  for  no 
special  comment,  but  the  Objective  Genitive  is  noteworthy  as 
exhibiting  at  times  a  wider  extension  of  application  than  at  first 
belonged  to  it.  Theoretically  the  Objective  Genitive  is  used  only 
with  verbal  nouns  whose  corresponding  verb  governs  the  Accusa¬ 
tive.  Thus  amor  patris  corresponds  to  a  metre  patrem ,  metus 
deorutn  to  metuere  deos,  etc.  But  by  an  extension  of  usage  we 
frequently  find  the  Genitive  used  with  nouns  derived  from  verbs 
which  govern  other  cases,  and  even  from  verbs  which  admit  no 
case  construction  whatever.  Typical  examples  are  :  consuefudd 
hominum ,  1  intercourse  with  men  ’ ;  excessus  vitae,  1  departure 
from  life  ’ ;  ira  praedae  amissae ,  ‘  anger  on  account  of  the  loss 
of  the  booty  ’ ;  argenti  oratio,  1  talk  about  the  money.’  These 
relations,  however,  are  usually  more  accurately  expressed  by 
means  of  prepositions. 

322.  Genitive  of  Quality.  — This  seems  to  have  been  of  second¬ 
ary  origin  and  to  have  developed  from  the  Subjective  Genitive. 
Thus  hotrid  magnae  virtutis  was  probably  originally  ‘  Virtue’s 
man.’  In  conformity  with  this  origin,  the  Genitive  of  Quality 
regularly  denotes  a  permanetit  quality,  as  opposed  to  the  Ablative 
of  Quality,  which  was  primarily  employed  to  designate  qualities 
which  were  more  or  less  transitory.  See  §  345. 

323.  Genitive  with  Adjectives. — This  construction  must  be 
regarded  as  equally  primitive  with  that  of  the  Genitive  with 
nouns.  Cupidus  laudis ,  for  example,  is  just  as  original  a  construc¬ 
tion  as  cupiditas  laudis. 

As  regards  the  construction  with  sunilis ,  many  fine-spun  theories 
have  been  propounded  to  account  for  the  difference  between 


1/8 


Syntax. 


similis  with  the  Genitive  and  similis  with  the  Dative.  The  dif¬ 
ference,  however,  is  probably  merely  one  of  chronology  and  not 
of  meaning.  In  the  earliest  Latin  we  find  similis  construed  only 
with  the  Genitive.  This  is  Plautus’s  unvarying  usage.  Later  the 
use  of  the  Dative  begins  to  creep  in,  doubtless  after  the  analogy 
of  par  and  similar  words  construed  with  the  Dative,  and  as  time 
goes  on  the  Dative  gains  the  supremacy  more  and  more,  until  in 
Silver  Latin  the  Genitive  is  comparatively  rare. 

324.  Genitive  with  Verbs.  —  If  the  Genitive  was  primarily  an 
adnominal  case,  its  use  with  verbs  must  be  of  secondary  origin, 
and  is  due  either  to  some  analogy  whereby  the  verb  adopts  the 
construction  of  a  noun  of  kindred  meaning,  or  else  to  the  ellipsis 
of  a  governing  word. 

325.  Genitive  with  MeminI,  Reminlscor,  Oblivlscor. — With 

verbs  of  remembering  the  use  of  the  Genitive  apparently  comes 
from  associating  the  verb  with  memor .  Thus  memini  was  felt  as 
memor  sum.  Obliviscor  followed  the  analogy  of  its  opposite, 
memini.  Cf.  English  differ  with  after  the  analogy  of  agree  with. 

326.  Genitive  with  Admoneo,  etc.  —  Here  the  verb  of  remind¬ 
ing  was  probably  felt  as  equivalent  to  aliquem  memorem  reddere , 
and  was  construed  with  the  Genitive  on  this  principle. 

327.  With  Verbs  of  Judicial  Action  the  Genitive  is  plausibly 
explained  as  resulting  from  an  ellipsis  of  the  governing  word, 
crimine ,  judicio ,  nomine.  Thus  Verrem  avaritiae  coarguit  is  to 
be  regarded  as  standing  for  Verrem  avaritiae  crimine  coarguit ; 
‘  he  convicts  Verres  on  the  charge  of  avarice.’  Occasionally  m- 
mine  was  expressed,  e.g.  Tacitus,  Annals,  vi.  14.  2  cecidere  conju- 
rationis  crimine  ;  iii.  44.  8  majestatis  crimine  reum. 

328.  Genitive  with  Pudet,  Paenitet,  etc.  —  The  Genitive  here 
is  held  to  depend  upon  the  noun  notion  implied  in  the  verb. 
Thus  pudet  suggests  pudor ;  paenitet ,  paenitentia  ;  miseret ,  miseri- 
cordia ,  etc. 


The  Ablative. 


1 79 


329.  Interest  and  Refert.  —  The  Genitive  here  is  probably  the 
Subjective  Genitive  used  predicatively,  i.e.  patris  interest  rent 
familiarem  curare  is  quite  analogous  to  patris  est  rent  familiarem 
curare.  For  the  Ablative  Singular  Feminine  of  the  Possessive 
with  refert  and  interest ,  see  §  349.  3. 

330.  Genitive  with  Other  Verbs. — With  verbs  of  plenty  and 
want,  e.g.  cornpled ,  impled ,  indiged ,  the  Genitive,  where  used,  is 
employed  after  the  analogy  of  its  use  with  adjectives  of  plenty 
and  want;  thus  compled  after  pTenus ;  indiged  after  egenus ,  etc. 
But  with  most  verbs  of  this  category  the  Ablative  is  the  regular 
construction.  Potior  when  construed  with  the  Genitive  follows 
the  analogy  of  potens,  ‘  master  of.' 

The  Ablative. 

331.  The  Ablative  is  a  so-called  syncretistic  case,  i.e.  a  case 
resulting  from  the  fusion  of  more  than  one  original  case.  The 
Ablative  represents  three  original  Indo-European  cases,  viz.  the 
true  Ablative  or  from- case,  the  Instrumental  or  with- case,  and 
the  Locative  or  in- case.  Evidences  of  the  fusion  referred  to  are 
found  both  in  the  forms  and  in  the  functions  of  the  so-called 
Ablative. 

a)  Fon?is :  Only  a  portion  of  the  forms  designated  as  Ablative 
are  historically  such.  Thus  in  ^-sterns  the  Ablative  Singular  is  a 
true  Ablative  (eg.  porta,  for  portad  ;  §118).  In  the  Plural  of 
^-sterns  the  so-called  Ablative  is  probably  an  Instrumental,  — 
possibly  a  Locative  (§  122).  The  same  is  true  of  ^-sterns  as  of 
^-sterns.  In  Consonant  stems  the  Ablative  Singular  in  -e  (e.g. 
milite)  is  either  an  Instrumental  or  a  Locative  (§  141),  while  the 
Plural  ending  -ibus  is  a  true  Ablative.  In  the  -1-,  -u-,  and  -Fstems 
both  the  Ablative  Singular  and  the  Ablative  Plural  are  true  Ablatives. 

b)  Functions:  The  triple  function  of  the  so-called  Ablative 
also  points  clearly  to  a  triple  origin  of  the  case.  Thus  we  find 
from- uses,  with- uses,  and  A?-uses  (the  last  much  rarer  than  the 


i8o 


Syntax. 


others)  side  by  side.  Notions  so  radically  distinct  could  hardly 
have  developed  from  a  single  original  case. 

By  the  Romans,  of  course,  the  Ablative  was  felt  as  a  single  case. 
They  were  totally  ignorant  of  its  syncretistic  origin,  although  they 
recognized  its  great  diversity  of  function. 

332.  Causes  of  Syncretism  in  the  Latin  Ablative. — The  causes 
leading  to  syncretism  in  the  Ablative  were  of  twofold  nature  : 

a)  In  the  first  place  certain  Ablative,  Locative,  and  Instru¬ 
mental  formations,  originally  distinct,  came  to  be  identical  in 
form.  Thus  in  consonant  stems  the  original  Locative  ended  in  -i, 
the  Instrumental  in  -a.  But  by  phonetic  laws  -i  and  -a  both 
became  -e.  Thus  an  original  *mllit-i  and  an  original  *mllit-d 
both  became  milit-e.  Similarly  in  the  Ablative  Plural  of  a-  and 
^-sterns  -is  (for  *-ais,  *-dis ;  §  122)  may  possibly  represent  both 
a  Locative  and  an  Instrumental  formation.  So  probably  some 
other  formations. 

b)  In  the  second  place  the  Locative,  Ablative,  and  Instru¬ 
mental  cases,  in  spite  of  their  radical  differences  of  meaning, 
naturally  possessed  certain  points  of  contact.  Thus  aqua  lavai'e 
might  have  meant  originally  either  ‘  to  wash  with  water  ’  or  ‘  to 
wash  in  water,’  i.e.  might  be  expressed  either  by  the  Instrumental 
or  the  Locative.  Similarly  equo  vein  might  mean  ‘  to  be  borne  on 
a  horse  ’  or  ‘  by  a  horse  ’ ;  onus  u?nero  sustinet,  1  he  bears  the 
load  on  his  shoulder  ’  or  ‘  with  his  shoulder  ’ ;  earns  veniunt \ 
1  they  come  with  carts  ’  or  ‘  on  carts,’  etc.  These  examples  all 
show  points  of  contact  between  the  Locative  and  Instrumental. 
The  Ablative  and  Instrumental  also  have  certain  points  of  contact. 
Thus  ira  ardere  might  mean  either  ‘  to  burn  with  anger  ’  or  ‘  from 
anger  ’ ;  lacte  vlvunt  might  mean  either  ‘  they  live  from  milk  ’  or 
‘  by  milk,’  etc.  Points  of  contact  between  Locative  and  Ablative 
are  naturally  much  less  frequent,  yet  such  English  expressions  as 
‘  to  receive  at  the  hands  of  ’  and  ‘  from  the  hands  of,’  show  that 
even  here  contact  was  possible. 


The  Ablative . 


1 8 1 


Ablative,  Instrumental,  and  Locative,  therefore,  to  a  certain 
extent  occupied  common  ground  in  the  field  of  thought,  and  this 
circumstance,  coupled  with  certain  outward  resemblances  in  form, 
ultimately  led  in  Latin  to  a  complete  fusion  of  the  three  and  to 
the  establishment  of  a  single  syncretistic  case,  —  the  Ablative. 

Genuine  Ablative  Uses. 

333.  The  true  Ablative  designated  dissociation  or  the  point  of 
departure.  When  the  dissociation  is  external,  we  call  the  con¬ 
struction  Ablative  of  Separation  ;  when  the  dissociation  is  internal, 
we  call  it  Ablative  of  Source,  a  construction  which  in  prose  is  con¬ 
fined  to  narrow  limits.  The  Ablative  of  Agency  is  also  a  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  true  Ablative,  the  agent  being  conceived  as  the  source 
from  which  the  action  emanates ;  e.g.  in  a  Caesare  acciisatus  est 
the  action  was  primarily  conceived  as  emanating  from  Caesar  as 
its  source. 

334.  Ablative  of  Comparison.  —  This  construction  also  reveals 
the  original  conception  of  point  of  departure.  Thus  melle  dulcior 
primarily  meant  ‘  sweeter,  reckoning  from  honey  as  the  standard,’ 
and  so  in  similar  expressions.  An  examination  of  Cicero’s  orations 
shows  that  in  this  writer  the  Ablative  of  Comparison  is  mainly 
restricted  to  negative  sentences,  to  interrogative  sentences  imply¬ 
ing  a  negative,  and  to  a  few  stock  phrases  such  as  luce  cl arius, 
latius  opinioiie ,  etc. 

When  plus ,  minus,  longius,  and  amplius  are  used  as  the 
equivalents  of  plus  quam,  minus  quam,  etc.,  the  plus,  minus,  etc., 
were  probably  originally  appositional.  Thus  amplius  inginfi  urbes 
incenduntur  originally  meant  ‘  twenty  cities,  (aye)  more  were 
fired.’  This  explanation,  of  course,  involves  the  assumption  that 
originally  a  different  order  of  the  words  existed  in  sentences  of 
this  type,  eg.  viginti  urbes,  amplius,  incenduntur,  and  this  assump¬ 
tion  is  borne  out  by  the  repeated  occurrence  of  this  order,  eg. 
'Lac.  Ann.  xii.  43  quindecim  durum  alimenta,  non  amplius,  ‘  food 


182 


Syntax. 


for  fifteen  days,  not  more’;  Livy  xxix.  32.  5  cum  qumquaginta , 
hand  amp  Hits,  equitibus ,  ‘  with  fifty  horsemen,  no  more.’ 

Instrumental  Uses  of  the  Ablative. 

335.  The  Instrumental  was  primarily  the  case  of  association  or 
with- case. 

336.  Ablative  of  Accompaniment.  —  This  is  logically  one  of  the 
first  and  most  obvious  developments  of  the  sociative  idea.  The 
construction  is  not  frequent,  however,  being  confined  mainly  to 
military  expressions.  Gr.  222.  1. 

337.  Ablative  of  Association.  —  Besides  the  idea  of  accompani¬ 
ment  (which  strictly  applies  only  to  persons  in  connection  with  a 
verb  of  motion)  the  Ablative  also  sometimes  denotes  association. 
This  construction  was  never  common  in  Latin,  yet  it  should  be 
recognized  in  a  limited  set  of  expressions  ;  thus  with  jungere ,  con- 
j linger e,  mis  cere ,  mutare ,  permutare ,  assuetus,  e.g.  libido  scelere 
juncta ,  ‘  lust  joined  with  crime  ’ ;  mella  vino  mis  cere ,  1  to  mix 
honey  with  wine  ’ ;  bellum  agricultural  per  mutant,  1  they  exchange 
war  for  farming  ’ ;  assuetus  labore ,  1  accustomed  to  toil  ’  (lit. 
‘familiarized  with  toil’).  In  all  of  these  expressions  and  in  some 
others  of  less  frequent  occurrence,  it  seems  better  to  recognize  the 
primitive  sociative  force  of  the  Instrumental,  rather  than  the  Ab¬ 
lative  of  Means,  as  is  done  in  Gr.  §  218.  5  ;  7. 

338.  Ablative  of  Attendant  Circumstance  (Delbriick’s  *  Instru- 
mentalis  der  Begleitenden  Umstande’;  Vergleichende  Syntax, 
§  105).  —  This  construction  also  is  a  direct  outgrowth  of  the 
sociative  idea  inherent  in  the  Instrumental.  Thus  dat  sonitu 
magno  stragem  means  ‘  occasions  destruction  in  connection  with 
a  loud  crashing  ’ ;  nemo  me  a  funera  fletu  faxit,  1  let  no  one  cele¬ 
brate  my  obsequies  with  weeping  ’ ;  exstinguitur  ingenti  liictu,  1  he 
dies  under  circumstances  of  great  sorrow,’  etc. 


The  Ablative. 


183 

339.  The  Ablative  of  Manner  is  another  obvious  development  of 
the  sociative  idea.  Thus  in  magtia  gravitate  loquitur ,  ‘  he  speaks 
with  great  impressiveness/  the  ‘impressiveness’  was  primarily 
conceived  as  an  accompanying  feature  of  the  speaking.  ‘  Man¬ 
ner  ’  differs  from  ‘  Attendant  Circumstance  ’  in  that  it  is  regularly 
restricted  to  abstract  words,  e.g.  celeritate,  virtute,  dignitate,  etc . 

340.  Ablative  of  Accordance.  —  The  construction  treated  under 
Ablative  of  Manner  in  Gr.  §  220.  3,  viz.  suis  moribus ,  mea  sen¬ 
tential  etc.,  seems  to  be  closely  connected  both  with  Manner  on 
the  one  hand  and  Attendant  Circumstance  on  the  other.  The 
type  is  so  definite  and  pronounced  that  it  deserves  clear  recogni¬ 
tion  in  our  Latin  teaching.  Another  excellent  example  of  the 
construction  is  seen  in  Cic.  de  Sen.  3,  pares  autem  vetere  prover- 
bio  cum  paribus  facillime  congreganiur,  ‘  according  to  the  old 
proverb,  “  birds  of  a  feather  flock  together.”  ’ 

341.  Ablative  of  Means.  —  The  notion  of  Means  is  an  out¬ 
growth  of  the  idea  of  Association.  Thus,  hostem  felb  percussit  is 
primarily ‘he  smote  his  foe  (in  connection)  with  a  spear.’  Out 
of  this  sociative  idea  the  notion  of  means  or  instrument  developed 
secondarily.  Yet  there  are  few  instances  of  the  Ablative  of  Means 
in  which  traces  of  the  sociative  notion  are  not  apparent,  and  in 
some  cases  this  idea  is  very  prominent,  e.g.  pit  a  ludere,  ‘  to  play 
(with  a)  ball  ’ ;  debs  precibus  adorare,  ‘  to  worship  the  gods  with 
prayers.’ 

1.  With  utor,  fruor,  fungor,  potior,  vescor,  the  x\blative  of 
Means  is  a  natural  result  of  the  Middle,  i.e.  reflexive,  use  of  these 
verbs,  ‘  benefit  one’s  self,’  ‘  enjoy  one’s  self,’  etc. 

2.  With  opus  est  the  Ablative  is  a  secondary  construction  after 
the  analogy  of  usus  est  with  the  Ablative.  In  usus  est  aliqua  re, 
‘  there  is  need  of  something,’  the  Ablative  was  originally  one  of 
Means,  lit.  ‘  there  is  service  by  means  of  something.’  From  the 
notion  of  use  the  notion  of  need  arose  secondarily.  Cf.  German 
ich  brauche  etwas,  ‘  I  need  something,’  as  an  outgrowth  of  the 


184 


Syntax. 


earlier  meaning,  ‘  I  use  something.’  Besides  the  use  of  usus  est 
with  the  Ablative,  we  find  usus  used  predicatively,  eg.  hoc  usus 
est,  1  this  is  necessary.’  Now  in  the  case  of  opus,  the  predicate 
construction  was  probably  the  earlier ;  opus  is  best  taken  as  the 
Genitive  of  ops,  ‘  help,  service.’  The  formation  would  then  be  a 
relic  of  Genitives  of  the  type  of  no  minus,  necessus ,  etc.  (§  138). 
At  the  outset  hoc  opus  est  meant  ‘  this  is  of  service,’  secondarily 
4  this  is  necessary.’  Early  Latin  exhibits  many  instances  of  this 
predicative  use  of  opus  in  its  original  meaning,  ‘  of  service,’  and 
the  same  force  is  noticeable  at  times  in  Cicero  (eg.  de  Or.  ii. 
296),  Livy  (eg.  xliii.  19.  4),  and  later  writers.  The  construction 
opus  est  aliqua  re  seems  to  be  historically  later  than  the  predicate 
construction,  and  to  have  developed  after  the  analogy  of  usus  est 
aliqua  re.  It  is  in  view  of  this  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  con¬ 
struction  that  it  has  been  classed  in  the  Gr.  as  a  subdivision  of 
the  Ablative  of  Means. 

3.  With  continerl,  consistere,  constare,  consist  of,  be  composed 
of,  the  Ablative  was  probably  originally  one  of  Means.  Such  is 
the  view  of  Ebrard,  de  Ablativi,  Locativi,  Instrumental is  usu,  p. 
645.  Ktihner  and  Roby  also  give  this  explanation  for  constare 
and  consistere ;  contineri  they  explain  as  a  Locative  use.  But  all 
three  words  originally  had  the  same  meaning,  ‘  hold  together,  be 
held  together,’  and  it  seems  unnecessary  to  adopt  different  expla¬ 
nations  for  the  separate  verbs.  Some  scholars  regard  the  Abla¬ 
tive  with  all  three  verbs  as  a  true  Ablative  usage.  This  view  is 
based  upon  the  occurrence  of  ex  with  the  Ablative  with  constare. 
But  prepositions  are  a  very  uncertain  guide  in  such  matters. 
Often  more  than  one  case  relation  is  possible  with  the  same  verb ; 
and  often  a  verb  in  its  developed  meaning  takes  a  different  con¬ 
struction  from  that  which  it  originally  had.  See  Delbrlick, 
Vergleichende  Syntax,  p.  230. 

4.  Quid  hoc  homine  facias;  quid  me  flet?  Delbrlick  in  his 

Ablativus,  Localis,  Instrumentalis,  p.  17  (published  in  1867), 
explained  the  case  in  expressions  of  this  type  as  a  true  Ablative. 


The  Ablative . 


185 


Ebrard’s  collections  for  early  Latin,  however,  showed  that  the  con¬ 
struction  was  rather  Instrumental  in  origin,  and  Delbriick  now 
(  Vergleichende  Syntax ,  p.  248)  adopts  this  view. 

5.  Ablative  of  the  Way  by  which. — This  construction  seems 
to  be  one  of  considerable  antiquity,  and  deserves  recognition  as 
an  independent  type  of  the  Instrumental.  It  appears  not  only  in 
Latin,  but  in  several  other  Indo-European  languages.  Illustra¬ 
tions  for  Latin  are  :  ut  jugis  Octogesam  perveniret ,  ‘  that  he  might 
reach  Octogesa  by  way  of  the  mountains’ ;  portis  erumpunt ;  fra¬ 
me  ntum  quod flumine  Arai'i  subvexerat. 

342.  Ablative  of  Cause.  —  Cause  is  sometimes  referred  to  the 
true  Ablative  for  its  origin.  In  accordance  with  this  theory  Ira 
ardere  meant  originally  ‘  to  burn  from  anger.’  The  Sanskrit  often 
employs  the  Ablative  in  this  way.  On  the  other  hand  an  Instru¬ 
mental  origin  is  equally  conceivable.  Cf.  such  English  expres¬ 
sions  as  burn  with  anger,  howl  with  pain,  leap  with  joy,  green 
with  envy;  the  Sanskrit  employs  the  Instrumental  as  well  as 
the  Ablative  to  denote  this  relation.  Other  Indo-European  lan¬ 
guages  also  use  the  Instrumental  to  denote  Cause.  While  it  is 
impossible  to  prove  that  Cause  has  developed  exclusively  from 
the  Instrumental  conception,  yet  it  is  likely  that  this  case  has  at 
least  had  the  greater  share  in  propagating  the  construction ;  such 
is  now  the  opinion  of  Delbriick  ( Vergleichende  Syntax,  §  126). 
Cf.  also  Kiihner,  Ausfuhrliche  Grammatik ,  ii.  p.  291. 

343.  Ablative  of  Degree  of  Difference. — This  seems  an  out¬ 
growth  of  die  Ablative  of  Means ;  i.e.  Tend  die  longiorem  inensem 
faciunt  meant  primarily  ‘  they  make  the  month  longer  by  means 
of  one  day,’  and  so  on. 

344.  Ablative  of  Price.  —  Price  was  in  its  origin  a  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  Means  notion.  At  the  outset,  the  construction  must 
have  been  confined  to  verbs  of  buying,  e.g.  puellam  viginfi  minis 
emit,  ‘  he  bought  the  girl  by  means  of  twenty  minae.’  With  verbs 


Syntax . 


1 86 

of  selling  the  price  was  not  strictly  the  means  of  selling ;  but 
after  the  analogy  of  verbs  of  buying ,  such  verbs  early  came  to 
take  the  Ablative  construction.  A  still  further  extension  of  the 
construction  is  seen  in  its  application  to  verbs  of  costing ,  being 
worth ,  etc .,  and  also  to  the  adjectives  vilis,  ‘  cheap  ’ ;  cams, 
1  dear,’  ‘  too  dear,’  eg.  US  sex  mtlibus  constat,  1  it  costs  6ooo 
sesterces  ’ ;  asse  carum,  1  dear  at  a  farthing.’ 

The  use  of  tanti,  quanti ,  plTiris,  minoris  with  verbs  of  buying 
and  selling  is  the  result  of  a  transference  of  the  Genitive  of  Value 
( Gr.  §  203.  3)  from  verbs  of  valuing,  estimating,  etc.,  to  verbs  of 
buying  and  selling.  Such  a  transition  is  psychologically  easy.  Cf. 
our  English  I  wouldn't  give  a  penny  for  that  (a  phrase  of  buying') 
in  the  sense  of  I  don't  value  that  at  a  penny . 

345.  The  Ablative  of  Quality  is  an  obvious  outgrowth  of  the 
sociative  force  of  the  Instrumental  case.  Thus  in  a  sentence  like 
serpens  immani  corpore  incedit,  the  original  idea  was  ‘  the  serpent 
moves  on  with  its  huge  body,’  as  though  the  body  were  a  distinct 
accompaniment  of  the  serpent.  But  in  course  of  time  the  Abla¬ 
tive  in  such  cases  came  to  be  felt  as  a  modifier  of  the  noun.  In 
this  way  such  expressions  as  acerba  turns  immani  corpore  serpens 
became  possible.  Here  the  phrase  immani  co?pore  can  be  con¬ 
ceived  only  as  an  Ablative  of  Quality,  limiting  serpens ;  it  cannot 
be  associated  with  the  verb  as  in  the  first  example. 

In  conformity  with  its  origin,  the  Ablative  of  Quality  primarily 
denotes  more  or  less  transitory  qualities.  Qualities  which  are  the 
mere  outward  accompaniment  of  an  action  are  naturally  not  per¬ 
manent.  The  observation  sometimes  made  that  the  Genitive 
denotes  internal  qualities,  whereas  the  Ablative  primarily  denotes 
external  ones,  is  not  sufficiently  exact.  In  the  phrase  hortatur 
ut  bond  animb  sint,  ‘  he  urges  them  to  be  of  good  courage,’  the 
quality  is  internal ;  yet  the  Genitive  could  not  here  be  used  ;  for 
while  the  quality  is  internal,  it  is  transitory.  On  the  other  hand, 
‘a  man  of  high  purpose’  is  in  Latin  vir  magni  animi,  since  a  per- 


The  Ablative. 


187 


manent  and  not  a  passing  quality  is  intended.  By  an  extension 
of  usage  the  Ablative  is  sometimes  employed,  where  ambiguity 
would  not  result,  to  indicate  permanent  characteristics ;  but  the 
Genitive  is  not  used  to  denote  temporary  qualities.  Thus  physi¬ 
cal  and  bodily  characteristics,  as  belonging  to  this  latter  class,  are 
regularly  designated  by  the  Ablative. 

346.  Ablative  of  Specification. — This  seems  to  be  a  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  sociative  force  of  the  Instrumental.  Thus  Helveth 
virtute  praecedunt  meant  originally ‘the  Helvetii  with  their  valor 
are  superior’ ;  so pede  claudus ,  ‘lame  with  his  foot.’  The  Means 
conception  may  also  have  assisted  in  the  propagation  of  the 
construction. 

347.  Ablative  Absolute.  —  The  Ablative  Absolute  construction 
is  an  outgrowth  of  the  sociative  force  of  the  Instrumental.  Thus 
in  Plaut.  Trin.  Prol.  13  rem  paternam  trie  adjutrice  perdidit ,  the 
sense  is  :  ‘  he  lost  his  property  (in  connection)  with  me  helping 
him’;  so  frequently  me  jiidice ,  ‘with  me  as  judge’;  fe  praesente , 
‘  with  you  present.’  Cf.  further  scissii  veste ,  passu  capillis ,  ‘  with 
clothes  torn,  and  hair  dishevelled.’  At  first  the  Ablative  in  such 
phrases  modified  the  verb  of  the  sentence,  but  ultimately  the 
original  construction  was  lost  sight  of,  and  the  phrase  as  a  whole 
came  to  be  felt  as  a  kind  of  loose  modifier  of  the  rest  of  the  sen¬ 
tence  (Ablative  Absolute). 

Others  have  regarded  the  Ablative  Absolute  as  a  Locative 
development.  This  theory  was  suggested  by  the  fact  that  the 
Locative  is  the  case  absolute  in  Sanskrit.  That  fact,  however, 
would  be  of  little  significance  for  Latin  unless  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  Locative  was  the  case  absolute  in  the  Indo-European  parent- 
speech.  But  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  such  was  the  case. 
In  fact  each  language  seems  to  have  developed  its  own  case 
absolute.  In  Sanskrit  we  have  the  Locative,  in  Greek  the  Geni¬ 
tive  and  Accusative ;  in  Gothic  there  are  traces  of  the  Dative ; 


1 88 


Syntax. 


modem  German  employs  the  Accusative.  As  regards  Latin, 
therefore,  there  is  no  anterior  probability  in  favor  of  any  particu¬ 
lar  case.  The  question  is  simply  one  of  evidence,  and  the  evi¬ 
dence  points  to  an  Instrumental  rather  than  to  a  Locative  origin. 
Those  who  advocate  a  Locative  origin  are  forced  to  find  the 
beginnings  of  the  construction  in  the  temporal  force  of  the  Loca¬ 
tive,  e.g.  Servio  r~egnante ,  ‘in  the  time  of  Servius  reigning’;  hello 
confecto ,  ‘  at  the  time  of  the  war  having  been  finished,’  etc.  But 
this  explanation  seems  much  less  natural  than  the  former. 

Another  theory,  that  of  Bombe  ( De  Ablativo  Absoluto ,  Greifs- 
wald,  1877),  refers  the  Ablative  Absolute  to  the  true  Ablative 
for  its  origin.  Bombe  explains  bello  confecto ,  etc .,  as  ‘  after  the 
war  having  been  finished.’  But  no  such  use  of  the  true  Abla¬ 
tive  to  denote  time  aftei '  which  is  known  for  Latin.  Moreover,  if 
Bombe’s  theory  were  true,  we  should  expect  a  predominance  of 
time-words  in  the  early  history  of  the  construction ;  but  no  such 
predominance  is  found  to  exist. 

Locative  Uses  of  the  Ablative. 

348.  The  Locative  seems  to  have  originally  designated  the 
space  in  or  within  which  something  is  done.  From  this  meaning 
the  notions  at ,  on  subsequently  developed  (Delbrtick,  Verglei- 
chende  Syntax ,  p.  183).  The  Locative  uses  of  the  Ablative  natu¬ 
rally  fall  into  two  classes :  Place  Relations  and  Time  Relations. 

349.  Place  Relations. — These  may  be  either  literal  ox  figurative. 

1.  In  its  literal  force  the  Locative  may  mean  : 

a)  ‘  in,’  as  premit  altum  corde  dolorem. 

b)  *  on,’  as  phare tram  fertumero. 

c)  ‘  by,’  ‘  near,’  as  11  to  re  curvo  exstruimus  toros.  This  last 
appears  to  be  rare. 

The  preposition,  however,  is  usually  necessary  to  express  these 
relations,  except  in  poetry  and  late  prose,  and  in  the  classes  of 
words  specified  in  Gr.  §  228.  1. 


The  Ablative. 


189 


Some  recognize  a  Locative  use  in  tenere  se  castris,  aliquem  tecto 
recipere ,  pugna  vincere ;  but  all  of  these  easily  admit  interpreta¬ 
tion  as  Instrumental  usages,  and  in  the  phrase  conquer  in  battle , 
it  is  significant  that  the  Sanskrit  regularly  employs  the  Instru¬ 
mental  case. 

2.  In  figurative  uses  the  Locative  function  of  the  Ablative  is 
restricted  to  very  narrow  limits.  Here  belong,  however,  a  few 
phrases  such  as  animis  pendent ,  lit.  ‘  they  are  in  suspense  in  their 
minds’  (cf.  the  Singular  aninii  in  animi  pendere )  ;  stare  pro  mis  sis, 
‘  to  stand  by  one’s  promises  ’ ;  stare  convenfis  ;  niariere  promissis. 
In  his  Ablativus ,  Instrumentalis ,  Localis  (1867),  p.  39,  Delbriick 
formerly  pronounced  in  favor  of  recognizing  a  Locative  usage 
in  connection  with  glorior,  detector.  But  now  in  his  Vergleichende 
Syntax,  p.  253,  this  scholar  regards  the  construction  as  Instru¬ 
mental  in  origin.  The  same  explanation  is  also  to  be  preferred 
for  laetor ,  gaudeo,  etc.  Similarly  with  fldo  and  confido  an  Instru¬ 
mental  origin  is  the  more  probable,  inasmuch  as  we  find  this  case 
used  in  Slavic  with  verbs  of  trusting. 

3.  Refert  and  Interest.  —  The  Ablative  Singular  Feminine  of 
the  Possessive  with  refert  originally  limited  the  re  (Ablative  of  res , 
‘  thing  ’)  of  refert.  If  the  construction  was  Locative  in  origin,  meet 
rlfert  may  have  originally  meant  ‘  it  bears  towards  my  affair  ’  (Goal 
Locative;  §  351),  i.e.  ‘it  concerns  me.’  The  use  of  the  Ablative 
Singular  Feminine  of  the  Possessive  with  interest  is  of  secondary 
origin,  being  modelled  on  the  construction  with  refert  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  similarity  of  meaning.  Some  regard  mea  refert  as 
equivalent  to  ex  mea  re  fert;  mea  re  has  also  been  explained  as 
a  stereotyped  Dative  (§§  86.  b ;  174),  and  even  as  a  Nominative. 

350.  Time  Relations.  —  The  transference  of  the  Locative  from 
space  relations  to  relations  of  time  is  easy  and  natural.  In  this 
way  arose  the  notions  of  time  at  which  and  withi?i  which.  The 
use  of  the  Ablative  to  denote  duration  of  time,  which  occurs  with 
some  little  frequency  in  the  best  prose  of  all  periods,  eg.  Caesar, 


Syntax. 


190 

B.  G.  i.  26.  5,  eaque  totd  node  continenter  ierunt ,  is  probably  not 
a  development  of  the  time  within  which ,  but  is  rather  to  be 
referred  to  an  Instrumental  origin.  This  use  of  the  Instrumental 
to  denote  duration  of  time  would  correspond  to  the  use  of  the 
Instrumental  to  denote  the  way  by  which  (§  341.  5). 

351.  Locative  of  the  Goal.  —  Sanskrit  and  Greek  both  exhibit 
a  goal  use  of  the  Locative.  This  is  the  result  of  extending  to 
verbs  of  motion  a  conception  primarily  belonging  only  to  verbs  of 
rest.  Cf.  in  English  he  went  among  the  Indians,  after  he  is  among 
the  Indians .  Examples  in  Latin  are  confined  chiefly  to  the  archaic 
period.  Thus,  foro  ponit  (Ennius) ;  loco  collocdre  (Lucilius) ; 
certa  paide  reponunt  (Lucretius).  Genuine  Locative  formations, 
humi ,  domi,  etc.,  also  occur  in  this  sense,  e.g.  domi  adveniens. 

Surviving  Locative  Forms. 

352.  All  the  genuine  Locative  formations  in  common  use  are 
enumerated  in  Gr.  §  232.  Beside  these  we  should  probably  rec¬ 
ognize  the  Locative  of  an  zz-stem  in  noctu,  and  (by  association  with 
nodu )  in  diu.  On  did,  as  the  Locative  of  dies  in  such  expres¬ 
sions  as  qua?'ti  did,  postridie  (for  posteri  did),  see  §  256.  1. 
Plural  formations  in  -is  from  a-  and  ^-sterns  are  more  safely 
regarded  as  Instrumentals  which  have  taken  on  all  the  functions 
of  the  Ablative,  Locative  included.  Plurals  in  -ibus  of  the  Third 
Declension  are  certainly  Ablative  in  form.  Formations  in  -e  of 
the  Third  Declension,  e.g.  Sulmone,  may  (possibly)  be  original 
Locatives,  or  they  may  be  Instrumentals;  §  141. 

THE  MOODS. 

The  Subjunctive. 

353.  The  Latin  Subjunctive  is  the  result  of  a  fusion  of  two 
original  moods  of  the  Indo-European  parent-speech,  the  Subjunc¬ 
tive  and  the  Optative.  Greek  and  Sanskrit  kept  these  distinct 
from  each  other,  but  in  Latin  they  early  became  merged  in  a 


The  Subjunctive. 


191 


single  mood  endowed  with  the  characteristic  meaning  of  each. 
The  following  table  indicates  the  origin  of  the  different  formations 
appearing  in  the  so-called  Subjunctive  : 


Subjunctive  Forms. 

1.  All  regular  Presents,  eg.  amem , 
moneam ,  regain ,  audiam  ;  §§  221  f. 

2.  All  Imperfects,  e.g.  essem ,  amarem, 
monerem,  etc.  ;  §  222.  3. 

3.  All  Pluperfects,  e.g.  amdvissem,  di- 
xissem,  etc.  ;  §  222.4. 


Optative  Forms. 

1.  Presents  in  -im,  eg.  sim ,  possim , 
nolim,  mdliniy  velim ,  edim ,  duim  ; 
§  218. 

2.  All  Perfects,  eg.  viderim ,  amdve- 
rim,  etc.;  §  219. 


354.  Original  Force  of  the  Subjunctive.  — The  Indo-European 
Subjunctive  exhibits  two  meanings  which  seem  to  have  been  the 
source  of  all  others  : 

a)  The  Subjunctive  expresses  the  will  of  the  speaker,  e.g.  surgat 
=  ‘  I  will  him  to  rise/  i.e.  Met  him  rise.’  This  use  implies  a  cer¬ 
tain  power  or  authority  on  the  part  of  the  speaker,  i.e.  he  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  willing  something  over  which  he  has  control  or  volition ; 
hence  the  name  1  Volitive  ’  has  been  given  to  characterize  this 
use  of  the  mood. 

b)  Alongside  of  this  Volitive  notion,  the  Indo-European  Sub¬ 
junctive  also  possessed  a  second  force,  —  that  of  futurity.  The 
Greek,  particularly  of  the  Homeric  dialect,  frequently  exhibits 
this  Future  force  of  the  Subjunctive  ;  but  it  is  uncertain  whether 
we  should  recognize  it  in  Latin.  In  Latin  the  Subjunctive  has  a 
pure  Future  force  only  in  subordinate  clauses,  and  this  may  be 
traced  to  a  different  origin.  Yet  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  so-called  Future  erd  was  in  reality  a  Present  Subjunctive 
(§  205.  3);  also  audiam ,  I'egam,  etc.;  while  the  so-called  Future 
Perfect  is  an  Aorist  Subjunctive  (§  216).  All  of  these  formations 
bear  witness  to  a  Future  force  as  having  once  existed  in  the  Latin 
Subjunctive. 

The  connection  of  meaning  between  the  Future  force  and  the 
Volitive  force  of  the  Indo-European  Subjunctive  is  much  closer 
than  might  at  first  appear.  Thus  the  English  tie's  to  go  clearly 


192 


Syntax. 


stands  on  the  border  line  between  the  two  meanings,  and  may 
be  interpreted  either  as  Volitive,  ==  let  him  go,  or  as  Future,  =  he 

will  go. 

355.  Original  Force  of  the  Optative.  —  Here  we  note  two  dif¬ 
ferent,  but  closely  related  meanings,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Sub¬ 
junctive.  Thus  : 

a )  The  Optative  is  used  to  express  an  act  as  wished  for  by  the 
speaker,  e.g.  veniat,  ‘  may  he  come  !  ’  The  element  of  power, 
authority,  and  volition  which  characterizes  the  corresponding  use 
of  the  Subjunctive  is  lacking  here. 

h)  Alongside  of  the  notion  of  wishing,  we  find  both  in  Greek 
and  in  Latin  another  notion,  viz.  that  of  a  contingent  futurity,  e.g. 
aliquis  dicat,  ‘  some  one  may  say.’  This  is  obviously  a  weaker 
type  of  Future  than  that  belonging  to  the  Subjunctive  (in  Greek), 
just  as  in  its  meaning  of  wishing  the  Optative  expresses  a  weaker 
phase  of  thought  than  the  Subjunctive. 

356.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  notion  of  futurity  expressed 
by  the  Subjunctive  is  related  to  the  notion  of  willing  expressed 
by  the  same  mood  as  the  objective  to  the  subjective.  Thus 
when  I  employ  surgat  in  its  Volitive  force  the  thought  is  expressed 
with  reference  to  myself  (subjective)  —  ‘  he’s  to  stand  up,  and 
at  my  bidding,’  i.e.  ‘  let  him  stand  up.’  But  surgat  in  its  Fut¬ 
ure  sense  (assuming  theoretically  that  this  use  once  belonged 
to  Latin)  is  used  without  reference  to  me  (objective),  =  ‘he’s  to 
stand  up,  and  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  it,’  i.e.  ‘he’s  going  to 
stand  up,’  ‘  will  stand  up.’ 

So  also  in  the  case  of  the  Optative.  Dicat  aliquis  as  a  wish,  in 
the  sense  ‘  May  some  one  say  ’  is  subjective,  i.e.  it  is  conceived 
with  reference  to  me  ;  but  aliquis  dicat,  ‘  some  one  may  say,’  is 
objective,  i.e.  is  conceived  as  outside  of,  and  apart  from,  me. 

The  two  meanings,  therefore,  which  we  discover  in  the  Subjunc¬ 
tive  and  Optative  are  in  reality  in  each  instance  simply  two  phases 
(the  subjective  and  the  objective)  of  the  same  thought. 


The  Subjunctive. 


193 


357.  The  so-called  Latin  Subjunctive,  as  an  amalgamation 
of  the  original  Indo-European  Subjunctive  and  Optative,  might 
naturally  be  expected  to  exhibit  all  four  of  the  original  significa¬ 
tions,  viz. : 


Volitive 
Pure  Future 
Optative 

Contingent  Future 


j-  Indo-European  Subjunctive. 
V  Indo-European  Optative. 


As  a  matter  of  fact  it  represents  with  certainty  only  three  of 
them,  viz.  the  Volitive,  Optative,  and  Contingent  Future ;  and 
from  these  three  primary  uses  are  to  be  derived  all  existing  Sub¬ 
junctive  constructions  in  Latin,  not  only  in  principal,  but  also  in 
subordinate,  clauses. 

The  absence  of  the  Pure  Future  use  of  the  Subjunctive  in 
Latin  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  Subjunctive  in 
that  use  early  came  to  be  felt  as  Indicative,  and  as  a  result  various 
Subjunctive  formations  actually  became  Indicatives,  e?-o,  audiajn, 
vide?'d,  etc.  (§§  205.  2,  3 ;  216).  This  transition  to  the  Indicative 
of  those  Subjunctive  forms  which  possessed  the  Pure  Future  force 
naturally  resulted  in  the  restriction  of  the  remaining  forms  to  the 
Volitive  use. 


CLASSIFICATION  OF  SUBJUNCTIVE  USES. 
Subjunctive  in  Principal  Clauses. 

A.  Original  Uses. 

358.  1.  Volitive  Subjunctive. 

a)  Jussive,  expressing  a  command.  This  use  is  found  : 

1)  In  the  Third  Singular  and  Third  Plural  of  the  Present 
tense,  e.g.  loquatur ,  ‘  let  him  speak  ’ ;  loquantur ,  *  let  them 
speak.’ 

2)  In  the  Second  Singular  Present,  often  with  indefinite 
force,  but  not  necessarily  so.  An  example  is  utare  viri- 

*  t 

bus ,  ‘  use  your  strength,’  i.e .  ‘  let  a  man  use  his  strength  ’ 
(indefinite). 


194 


Syntax. 


I?)  Of  determined  resolution.  This  rare  usage  is  confined  to 
the  Present  First  Singular,  e.g.  Terence,  Hautontimorumenos  273 
mane:  hoc  quod  coepi  pnmiim  enarrem ,  ‘  wait  !  I’m  bound  first 
to  finish  telling  what  I  began.’ 

c)  Hortatory.  This  is  confined  to  the  Present  First  Plural, 
and  is  a  mingling  of  a)  and  b),  e.g.  loquamur ,  ‘  let  us  speak,’  i.e. 
‘  I’m  bound  to  speak,  and  do  you  speak.’ 

d)  Prohibitive.  The  earlier  theory  as  to  the  Prohibitive  was 
that  the  Second  Singular  Perfect  was  employed  of  a  definite 
Second  Person,  while  the  Second  Singular  Present  had  a  general 
(or  indefinite)  force.  This  view  has  been  shown  to  be  false  by 
the  exhaustive  examination  of  the  subject  by  Elmer,  American 
Journal  of  Philology,  1894,  No.  3.  Elmer’s  investigation  has 
shown  that  neither  construction  is  at  all  frequent  in  classical  prose, 
and  that  the  real  difference  of  force  between  the  two  construc¬ 
tions  is  that  stated  in  Gr.  §  276. 

e)  Deliberative.  This  occurs  in  affirmative  questions  often 
implying  doubt,  indignation,  etc .,  e.g.  quid  faciamus ,  ‘  what  are 
we  to  do  !  ’  ‘  what  can  we  do  !  ’  It  seems  natural  to  explain  this 
as  originally  ‘we  are  to  do,  —  what?’  ‘you  want  us  to  do, — 
what?’  Cf.  the  colloquial  English,  what  let's  do?  for  a  similar 
development  of  a  Volitive  phrase  to  an  interrogative  form. 

For  derived  uses  of  the  Deliberative,  see  §  363. 

f)  Volitive  clauses  with  concessive  force,  e.g.  ne  sit  maximum 
malum  dolor ,  malum  eerie  est,  ‘  granting  that  pain  is  not  the 
greatest  evil,  it  at  least  is  an  evil,’  lit.  ‘  let  not  pain,’  etc. 

g)  Volitive  clauses  of  proviso,  e.g.  moderatio  virium  adsit,  ne 
ille  desiderid  virium  non  teiiebitur ,  ‘  provided  there  be  a  moderate 
degree  of  strength,  surely  a  man  will  not  feel  the  lack  of  strength,’ 
lit.  ‘  let  there  be  a  moderate  degree,’  etc. 

Some  scholars  attribute  the  last  two  uses  to  the  Optative  force 
of  the  Subjunctive,  but  the  notion  of  will  and  authority  regularly 
present  in  such  clauses  seems  too  strong  to  admit  of  that 
interpretation, 


The  Subjunctive. 


195 


359.  Optative  Subjunctive.  —  The  original  use  of  the  Optative 
is  to  denote  a  wish.  This  usage  is  mostly  confined  to  the  Third 
Plural  of  the  Present,  e.g.  sint f elicits,  ‘  may  they  be  happy.’ 

360.  Subjunctive  of  Contingent  Futurity.  —  This  corresponds 
to  the  second  of  the  two  meanings  of  the  Indo-European  Optative 
(§  355.  b).  From  this  general  notion  have  developed  the  follow¬ 
ing  special  uses  : 

a)  Subjunctive  of  Pure  Possibility,  e.g.  aliquis  cTicat ,  aliquis 
dixerit ,  ‘  some  one  may  say.’  This  is  the  most  obvious  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  notion  of  contingent  futurity,  but  it  is  rare,  being  con¬ 
fined  chiefly  to  phrases  of  the  type  cited  in  the  above  examples. 
As  regards  the  use  of  tenses,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  Perfect 
(originally  Aorist ;  §  219)  lays  stress  upon  the  accomplishment 
of  the  act,  while  the  Present  calls  attention  to  its  progress. 

b)  Where  some  condition  is  implied  or  expressed,  e.g.  velim , 
‘  I  should  wish,’  i.e.  ‘if  I  were  to  have  my  way  ’ ;  dicas, ‘  you  would 
say,’  i.e.  ‘if  you  should  have  occasion  to  express  an  opinion.’ 
This  use  occurs  also  particularly  in  the  First  Singular  of  the  Per¬ 
fect  (Aorist,  §  219),  e.g.  dixerim,  ‘I  should  say’;  crediderim ,  ‘I 
should  believe.’  Where  the  condition  is  expressed,  we  get  a 
Conditional  Sentence  of  the  Second  Type  (Gr.  §  303),  e.g.  laefe- 
ris,  si  veniat,  ‘  you  would  rejoice,  if  he  should  come.’ 

The  name  Potential  is  usually  given  to  the  Subjunctives  cited 
under  a)  and  b)  ;  but  this  name  is  somewhat  inexact ;  see  §  366. 

1 

B.  Derived  Uses. 

361.  The  uses  here  enumerated  are  secondary  developments 
from  those  cited  above  in  §§  358  ff. 

362.  Extension  of  the  Jussive.  — Corresponding  to  the  Jussive 
loquZitur  there  developed  an  Imperfect  use,  e.g.  loqueretur ,  in  the 
sense  ‘  he  was  to  speak,’  i.e.  ‘  he  should  have  spoken.’  This  use 
is  manifestly  a  derived  one,  since  one  cannot  now  will  a  person 


196 


Syntax. 


to  have  done  in  the  past  what  he  obviously  has  failed  to  do.  An 
expression  like  loqueretur ,  therefore,  must  have  been  formed  after 
the  analogy  of  loquatur.  The  Pluperfect  Subjunctive  also  occurs 
in  this  sense,  eg.  eum  imitatus  esses,  ‘  you  ought  to  have  imitated 
him.’  The  Volitive  character  of  these  expressions  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  the  negative  is  regularly  ne ,  e.g.  ne  poposciss~es,  ‘you 
ought  not  to  have  asked.’ 

363.  Extensions  of  the  Deliberative.  —  a )  Corresponding  to 
the  Deliberative  use  of  the  Present  Subjunctive,  eg.  quid faciamus , 
‘  what  are  we  to  do  ?  ’  we  have  secondarily  quid  faceremus ,  ‘  what 
were  we  to  do  !  ’  ‘  what  could  we  do  !  ’  This  usage  is  just  as  ob¬ 
viously  secondary,  as  is  loqueretur  cited  above  in  §  362. 

b)  Similarly  all  negative  Deliberatives  are  of  secondary  origin. 
For  if  cur  venicunus  be  explained  as  ‘we  are  to  come,  —  why!’ 
then  in  negative  sentences  of  this  kind  we  should  expect  ne  as  the 
negative,  if  the  sentence  be  originally  Volitive.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
the  negative  is  regularly  non,  and  this  circumstance  shows  that 
the  Volitive  origin  had  been  lost  sight  of  at  the  time  the  negative 
Deliberative  came  into  existence,  i.e.  negative  Deliberative  sen¬ 
tences  are  a  secondary  development  from  the  affirmative  type,  not 
a  direct  development  from  the  Volitive  itself. 

364.  Extension  of  the  Concessive  Volitive.  —  Corresponding  to 

ne  suit  vires  in  senectute,  ‘  granting  that  there  is  not  strength  in  old 
age,’  we  find  the  Perfect  Subjunctive  used  with  concessive  force, 
eg.  fuerit  aliis,  tibi  quando  esse  coepit  ?  ‘  granted  that  he  was  such 
to  others,  when  did  he  begin  to  be  so  to  you  ?  ’ 

It  is  obvious  that  this  use  is  secondary,  since  a  volition  or  act  of 
willing  cannot  refer  to  the  past.  The  use  of  the  Perfect  could 
have  come  into  existence  only  after  the  concessive  use  of  the 
Present  had  become  a  well-established  idiom. 

365.  Extension  of  the  Optative.  —  The  use  of  the  Imperfect 

and  Pluperfect  Subjunctive  in  expressions  like  utinam  tu  valeres, 


The  Subjunctive. 


197 


utinam  adfuisses,  is  also  secondary.  For  if  the  primary  force  of 
the  Optative  was  to  denote  a  wish,  it  must  have  looked  forward  to 
the  future  ;  hence  its  employment  with  reference  to  the  present 
and  the  past  must  be  a  derived  usage,  after  the  analogy  of  sint 
felices ,  etc. 

The  Imperfect  and  Pluperfect  Subjunctive,  in  expressions  like 
those  cited  above,  do  not  strictly  express  a  wish,  but  rather  a 
regret  at  the  present  non-existence  or  the  previous  non-occurrence 
of  something. 

366.  Extensions  of  the  Subjunctive  of  Contingent  Futurity.  — 

There  are  two  derived  uses  : 

a)  The  Present  2d  Singular  in  the  sense  ‘  you  can,  one  can,’ 
e.g.  videas,  *  you  can  see.’  In  its  origin,  the  Subjunctive  of  the 
Contingent  Future  denoted  mere  objective  possibility,  e.g.  die  as 
=  ‘ there’s  a  possibility,  you  will  say,’  ‘you  may  say.’  In  the 
derived  usage  this  objective  possibility  becomes  subjective, — 
‘you  may’  becomes  ‘you  can.’  Strictly  speaking,  only  the  second 
of  these  is  Potential.  For  potentiality  involves  capacity  and  con¬ 
trol,  which  mere  possibility  does  not. 

b)  The  2d  Singular  Imperfect.  This  is  restricted  to  narrow 
limits,  being  found  chiefly  in  such  expressions  as  vi 'deres,  ‘  one 
could  see  ’ ;  centals,  ‘  one  could  observe  ’ ;  ere  deres ,  ‘  one  could 
believe.’  The  usage  is  an  extension  of  a )  above,  and,  like  that,  is 
Potential  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  term. 

Subjunctive  in  Dependent  Clauses. 

367.  Parataxis  and  Hypotaxis.  —  In  the  earlier  stages  of  lan¬ 
guage  there  were  no  subordinate  clauses.  Sentences  were  joined 
by  co-ordination.  For  example,  an  independent  use  of  the  Indic¬ 
ative  was  followed  by  an  independent  use  of  the  Subjunctive,  or  by 
another  Indicative  without  any  conjunction,  e.g.  eds  moneo ,  desi- 
nant,  lit.  ‘  I  warn  them,  let  them  cease.’  In  course  of  time  in  such 
combinations  the  one  clause  came  to  be  felt  as  subordinate,  and 


198 


Syntax. 


to  be  introduced  by  various  connecting  particles  ( ‘  subordinate 
conjunctions’).  The  stage  of  co-ordination  is  called  Parataxis; 
that  of  subordination,  Hypotaxis.  In  Latin  the  paratactic  form 
of  expression  often  survives,  even  when  the  hypotactic  relation 
has  become  clearly  developed.  This  is  especially  noticeable  in 
the  early  and  colloquial  language,  but  is  found  also  in  the  best 
prose  in  certain  categories  of  expression;  see,  for  example,  §  385. 

All  uses  of  the  Subjunctive  in  subordinate  clauses  are  naturally 
derived  uses. 


Subjunctive  of  Purpose. 

368.  1.  The  Subjunctive  clause  of  Purpose  is  introduced  by  nt, 
ne,  quo,  qui ,  and  Relative  Adverbs.  It  was  probably  Jussive  in 
origin,  e.g.  tibi  do  pecuniam  ut  panem  emas  originally  meant  ‘  I 
give  you  money;  just  purchase  bread.’  The  original  force  of  ut 
here  is  somewhat  uncertain.  Probably  it  was  a  weak,  Indefinite 
adverb  meaning  ‘ somehow,’  ‘just.’  Cf.  ut  in  ut  pereat,  ‘may  he 
just  perish,’  uti-nam  in  utinam  venial,  ‘may  he  just  come  !  ’  This 
Indefinite  force  of  ut  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  Interrogative 
and  Relative  meanings  ‘  how  ?  ’  and  ‘  as  ’  of  the  same  word,  as  the 
Indefinite  quis  bears  to  the  Interrogative  quis  and  the  Relative  qui. 

In  course  of  time  the  ^//-clause  came  to  be  felt  as  subordinate 
to  the  other,  and  ut  from  being  an  adverb  came  to  be  felt  as  a  sub¬ 
ordinate  conjunction.  In  this  way  arose  the  purpose  clause  with  ut. 

2.  Negative  clauses  of  purpose  introduced  by  ne  were  quite 
analogous  in  origin  to  those  introduced  by  ut.  Thus  tibi  obsto  ne 
intres  probably  meant  originally  ‘  I  stand  in  your  way  ;  don’t  come 
in  !  ’  Ultimately  this  Parataxis  developed  into  Hypotaxis. 

3.  Quo  as  an  Ablative  of  Degree  of  Difference  is  regularly  con¬ 
fined  to  use  in  connection  with  comparatives.  The  Subjunctive 
with  quo  arises  in  the  same  way  as  with  other  relatives.  See  4. 

4.  Qui ,  quae,  etc.,  in  relative  clauses  of  purpose  had  practically 
a  demonstrative  force,  eg.  tibi  librum  do  quern  legas,  ‘  I  give  you  a 
book  to  read,’  originally  meant  ‘  I  give  you  a  book ;  read  it !  ’ 


The  Subjunctive. 


199 


5.  Relative  Clauses  with  dignus,  inddgnus,  and  idoneus  have 
been  classified  in  Gr.  §  282.  3  under  Relative  Clauses  of  Purpose. 
This  has  been  done  partly  on  account  of  the  meaning  of  such 
clauses,  partly  in  view  of  the  other  constructions  found  with  dig¬ 
itus ,  idoneus ,  etc.  As  regards  the  meaning  of  the  relative  clause 
with  dignus,  indlgnus,  idoneus ,  it  seems  impossible  to  separate  a 
sentence  like  dat  mihi  surculds  quos  seram ,  ‘  he  gives  me  shoots 
to  plant,’  from  dat  mihi  surculds  dlgnos  quos  seram,  ‘  he  gives  me 
shoots  fit  to  plant,’  originally  ‘  he  gives  me  fit  shoots,  to  plant.’ 
So  homilies  dignos  elegit  quos  mitteret  seems  originally  to  have 
meant :  ‘  he  selected  fit  men,  (in  order)  to  send  them,’  and 
then,  secondarily,  ‘  he  selected  men  fit  to  send.’  In  each  case 
the  Subjunctive  clause  is  fairly  one  of  Purpose.  This  view  is 
further  confirmed  by  the  other  constructions  found  with  dignus, 
idoneus.  Thus  we  repeatedly  find  an  Infinitive  employed  with 
these  words,  eg.  Verg.  Eel.  5.  45  et  puer  ipse  cantari  dignus, 
1  worthy  to  be  praised’ ;  Pliny,  Paneg.  7.  4,  dignus  eligi,  ‘worthy  to 
be  chosen.’  The  Gerund  with  ad  also  occurs,  eg.  Cic.  Rep.  i. 
18.  30,  dignus  ad  imitandum  ;  and  sometimes  even  an  ///-clause, 
eg.  eras  dignus  ut  hade  res  (cited  by  Quintilian  from  an  early 
author).  The  ///-clause  cannot  be  regarded  as  one  of  Result  in 
this  and  similar  cases,  as  is  done  by  Kuhner,  Ausf.  Gr.  ii. 
p.  858  d),  since  the  action  is  viewed  purely  as  one  contemplated, 
not  as  one  accomplished. 

Some  regard  the  relative  clause  with  dignus,  etc.,  as  a  Clause  of 
Characteristic.  It  is  of  course  quite  true  that  dignus,  with  a  fol¬ 
lowing  relative  clause,  does  express  a  characteristic  in  a  general 
way ;  but  the  relative  clause  itself  is  certainly  not  a  Clause  of 
Characteristic  in  the  technical  sense  of  that  term.  See  §  371. 

369.  It  is  obvious  that  only  those  purpose  clauses  are  of  primi¬ 
tive  origin  in  which  the  main  clause  and  the  subordinate  clause 
refer  to  different  persons.  Thus  in  a  sentence  of  the  type  pecu- 
niam  mutuor  ut  libros  emam,  emam  cannot  be  referred  directly 


200 


Syntax. 


to  a  Volitive  origin,  since  the  Volitive  Subjunctive  is  not  naturally 
used  to  represent  a  person  as  exercising  his  authority  and  volition 
over  himself.  Sentences  like  the  last,  therefore,  are  more  prob¬ 
ably  of  later  origin  and  formed  upon  the  analogy  of  those  cited 
in  §  368. 

Clauses  of  Characteristic. 

370.  The  Clause  of  Characteristic  is  a  relative  clause  devel¬ 
oped  from  the  Subjunctive  of  Contingent  Futurity  (§  360).  Thus 
in  nemo  est  qui  putet ,  the  original  sense  is  :  4  there  is  no  one  who 
would  think  ’ ;  so  sapientia  est  una  quae  maestitiam  pellat ,  ‘  phi¬ 
losophy  is  the  only  thing  that  would  drive  away  sorrow.’  But  in 
all  these  cases  the  notion  of  contingency  is  so  slight  as  easily 
to  disappear,  leaving  the  relative  clause  essentially  one  denoting 
a  fact;  see  also  §  406.  1. 

371.  Clauses  of  Characteristic  as  Distinguished  from  Relative 
Clauses  of  Purpose.  —  Difficulty  is  often  experienced  in  distin¬ 
guishing  Clauses  of  Characteristic  from  Relative  Clauses  of  Pur¬ 
pose.  This  difficulty  results  chiefly  from  the  fact  that  a  Relative 
Clause  of  Purpose  may  denote  a  characteristic  of  an  antecedent 
in  the  general  sense  of  the  word  characteristic.  Thus  in  Cicero, 
Brutus ,  56  scribed  at  dr  a  Hones  quds  alii  dicer ent,  ‘he  wrote 
speeches  for  other  persons  to  deliver,’  the  clause  quds  alii 
die  ere  nt  is  a  Relative  Clause  of  Purpose ;  but  at  the  same 
time  it  does  in  a  certain  sense  indicate  a  ‘  characteristic  ’  of 
its  antecedent.  One  essential  difference  between  the  Clause  of 
Characteristic  and  the  Relative  Clause  of  Purpose  consists  in  the 
fact  that  the  former  denotes  an  action  or  state  contemporary  with 
that  of  the  main  clause,  while  the  Relative  Clause  of  Purpose 
denotes  an  action  which  is  future  relatively  to  that  of  the  main 
clause.  In  accordance  with  this  principle  expressions  like  nihil 
Imbed  quod  again ,  ‘I  have  nothing  to  do’  (Hor.  Sat.  i.  9.  19)  ; 
nil  scid  quod  gaud  earn,  ‘I  don’t  know  anything  to  rejoice  about’ 


The  Subjunctive. 


201 


(Plaut.  Capt.  842)  are  Relative  Clauses  of  Purpose.  Did  these 
sentences  mean  respectively  ‘ I  have  nothing  that  I  am  doing  ’ 
and  ‘I  don’t  know  anything  that  I  am  rejoicing  about’  (con¬ 
temporary  action),  they  would  be  Clauses  of  Characteristic. 

At  times  we  find  sentences  which  are  ambiguous.  The  syn¬ 
tactical  nature  of  the  relative  clause  will  then  depend  upon  the 
interpretation.  A  good  example  is  Ter.  Phormio  433  habebis 
quae  tuam  senectutem  oblectet ,  either  ‘  you  will  have  some  one 
who  cheers’  (Characteristic)  or  ‘some  one  to  cheer’  (Purpose). 

372.  Clauses  of  Characteristic  Denoting  Cause  or  Opposition. 

—  In  sentences  like  o  fortunate  adulescens  qui  tuae  virtutis  Hoirie- 
rum  praecd?iem  inveneris  there  is  an  apparent  violation  of  the 
principle  that  the  Clause  of  Characteristic  refers  to  ‘  an  ante¬ 
cedent  not  otherwise  defined’  ( Gr .  §  283.  1)  ;  but  in  such  cases 
as  this  we  may  explain  the  relative  as  referring  to  an  indefinite 
antecedent  to  be  supplied.  According  to  this  view  the  original 
force  of  the  above  sentence  would  have  been  :  ‘  O  !  fortunate 
man,  (one)  who  has  found,’  etc.  The  frequent  employment  of 
?//  qui, ,  utpote  qui ,  etc .,  ‘  as  being  one  who,’  supports  this  view. 
The  use  of  the  Second  Singular  in  the  subordinate  clause  would 
then  be  a  species  of  attraction. 

373.  Clauses  of  Characteristic  Introduced  by  Quin. — The 

treatment  in  Gr.  §  283.  4  follows  that  of  Brugmann  in  Indogerma- 
nische  Forschungen ,  vol.  iv.  p.  226  ff.  Brugmann  sees  in  the  first 
element  of  this  quin  an  indeclinable  Relative  qui ,  which  he  thinks 
was  capable  of  standing  for  any  case  either  Singular  or  Plural. 
According  to  this  view,  quin  might  be  equivalent  to  qui  non ,  quae 
non ,  quod  non ,  etc.;  the  quin  mentioned  in  §§  383,  391  must 
then  be  regarded  as  a  separate  word. 

Clauses  of  Result. 

374.  Clauses  of  Result,  introduced  by  ut,  ut  non ,  quin,  qui,  are 
a  development  of  the  Subjunctive  of  Contingent  Future,  viz.  frotn 


202 


Syntax. 


its  second  phase,  where  there  is  a  condition  implied  (§  360.  b). 
Thus  in  the  sentence  hoc  flagitium  talc  est  ut  qifwis  oderit ,  the 
original  meaning  was  :  ‘  this  outrage  is  of  such  a  nature  as  anyone 
you  please  would  hate’  {i.e.  if  he  should  see  it).  From  this  to 
the  meaning  ‘of  such  a  nature  that  anybody  you  please  hates  it,’ 
is  an  easy  transition.  Cf.  in  English,  Shakespeare,  Julius  Ccesar , 
3.  2  Who  is  hei'e  so  base  that  would  be  a  bondman  ?  i.e.  as  to  be  a 
bondman.  See  Hale,  Sequence  of  Tenses ,  p.  24,  who  cites  other 
illustrative  uses  from  English  and  Greek. 

375.  Relative  Clauses  of  Result  are  simply  a  development  of 
the  Clause  of  Characteristic.  At  times  it  is  not  easy  to  decide 
whether  the  clause  is  one  of  Characteristic  or  of  Result,  and  indi¬ 
vidual  interpretations  of  the  same  sentence  would  doubtless  often 
differ.  For  example,  in  the  sentence  given  in  Gr.  §  284.  2  habetis 
eum  consulem  qui  pafere  vestris  dbcretis  non  dubitet,  the  clause 
qui  .  .  .  dubitet  might  be  felt  by  some  simply  as  a  Clause  of 
Characteristic,  —  ‘  a  consul  of  the  sort  that  ’ ;  but  the  clause  also 
admits  the  interpretation  ‘a  consul  such  that  he  does  not  hesitate’ ; 
and  in  that  sense  it  is  a  clause  of  Result. 

376.  Clauses  of  Result  with  Quin.  —  These  are  really  Relative 
Clauses  of  Result,  and  differ  from  Clauses  of  Characteristic  intro¬ 
duced  by  quin  just  as  ordinary  Relative  Clauses  of  Result  differ 
from  ordinary  Clauses  of  Characteristic.  Wherever  the  main 
clause  contains  tarn ,  talis,  etc.,  the  Result  notion  is  sufficiently 
clear. 

Causal  Clauses. 

377.  Causal  Clauses  Introduced  by  Quod,  Quia,  Quoniam. — 

When  these  take  the  Subjunctive,  it  is  on  the  principle  of  Indirect 
Discourse. 

378.  Causal  Clauses  Introduced  by  Cum.  —  The  Subjunctive 

with  r//;;/-causal  is  a  development  of  the  temporal  ^/////-clause. 
The  temporal  notion  easily  passes  into  the  causal  in  all  languages. 


The  Subjunctive. 


203 


Cf.  e.g.  in  English  ‘  When  he  saw  ruin  staring  him  in  the  face,  he 
did  not  care  to  live,’  i.e.  ‘  since  he  saw,’  etc. 

Clauses  with  Cum-Temporal. 

379.  The  treatment  in  the  Grammar ,  §  288  f.,  follows  the 
elaborate  and  convincing  exposition  of  Hale  in  his  Cum- 
Constructions,  Cornell  Studies  in  Classical  Philology ,  Yol.  i.  (Ginn 
&  Co.).  Hale  shows  that  the  ^///-clause  is  simply  a  form  of 
the  Clause  of  Characteristic.  Cum ,  earlier  quom  ( Gr .  §  9.  1), 
is  a  form  of  the  Relative  stem  quo-,  and,  as  such,  was  quite  as 
capable  of  introducing  a  Clause  of  Characteristic  as  was  any  other 
Relative  word.  Thus  the  Subjunctive  cum- clause  primarily  char¬ 
acterized  a  time  by  giving  the  situation  existing  at  that  time,  just 
as  any  other  Clause  of  Characteristic.  The  Indicative  <r////z-clause, 
on  the  other  hand,  like  the  Indicative  qui-clause,  was  primarily  a 
defining  clause  and  hence  used  to  denote  a  point  of  time  or  date. 

Clauses  Introduced  by  Antequam  and  Priusquam,  and  by  Dum, 

Donee,  and  Quoad. 

380.  Where  these  are  followed  by  the  Subjunctive,  Hale  (The 
A?iticipatory  Subjunctive  in  Greek  and  Latin ,  Chicago  Studies  in 
Classical  Philology ,  Vol.  i.,  University  Press  of  Chicago  [printed 
separately],  p.  68  ffi.)  recognizes  a  survival  in  Latin  of  the  Indo- 
European  Subjunctive  in  its  Pure  Future  phase,' — a  phase  con¬ 
spicuously  present  in  Homeric  Creek.  Others  refer  the  Mood 
to  the  Subjunctive  of  Contingent  Futurity  (the  second  of  the  two 
uses  of  the  Indo-European  Optative;  §  360). 

Substantive  Clauses. 

Substantive  Clauses  Developed  from  the  Volitive. 

381.  Many  of  these  are  often  regarded  as  Substantive  Clauses 
of  Purpose.  Such  a  designation  implies  either  that  the  clauses  in 
question  are  Purpose  Clauses  or  once  were  such ;  neither  of  these 


204 


Syntax. 


alternatives  represents  the  truth.  With  the  exception  of  the 
clauses  mentioned  in  Gr.  §  295.  3,  all  the  substantive  clauses 
included  in  §  295  are  the  developments  of  an  earlier  parataxis 
(see  §  367),  in  which  the  Subjunctive  was  Volitive  (Jussive,  De¬ 
liberative,  etc.)  in  nature. 

382.  The  earliest  form  of  these  clauses  would  be  represented 
by  such  examples  as  fe  oro ;  eum  juves ,  lit.  ‘  I  entreat  you ;  help 
him  !  ’  Sometimes,  especially  in  early  Latin  and  in  the  poets,  we 
find  the  inverted  order,  e.g.  eum  juves ,  fe  oro ,  ‘help  him  !  I  entreat 
you.’  In  both  instances  the  Volitive  character  of  the  Subjunctive 
is  clearly  apparent.  Sentences  of  the  type  fe  oro  lit  eum  juves ,  are 
a  later  development,  the  ut  being  added  after  the  Subjunctive  had 
come  to  be  felt  as  an  object  clause  and  as  needing  some  introduc¬ 
tory  particle.  This  need  of  an  introductory  particle  in  affirmative 
clauses  of  this  kind  would  be  felt  the  more  keenly,  since  in  nega¬ 
tive  clauses,  eg.  te  oro  lie  abeas  (originally  ‘  I  entreat  you  ;  don’t 
go  away!’),  the  ne  had  come  to  be  felt  as  a  subordinate  con¬ 
junction  ;  at  the  outset,  of  course,  it  was  a  mere  negative  adverb. 

383.  Substantive  Clauses  Introduced  by  Quominus  and  Quin 
after  Verbs  of  hindering.  —  As  explained  in  Gr.  §  295.  3  a , 
clauses  of  this  sort  are  probably  developed  from  genuine  Purpose 
Clauses.  However,  they  have  their  ultimate  origin  in  the  Volitive, 
since  the  Purpose  Clause  is  a  development  from  the  Volitive 
(§  368.  1).  The  original  character  of  Subjunctive  clauses  of  this 
kind  may  be  seen  in  an  expression  like  formidd  viros  impedit 
quominus  velint ,  originally  :  ‘  fear  hinders  men,  in  order  that  they 
may  not  be  willing,’  i.e.  prevents  them  from  being  willing.  Quo- 
minus  lit.  means  ‘  by  which  the  less,  by  which  not,’  and  hence  ‘in 
order  that  not.’ 

Clauses  with  quin  after  verbs  of  hindering  are  apparently  of  the 
same  nature  as  clauses  with  quominus.  Quin  is  compounded  of 
qui  (an  old  Instrumental)  and  ne,  lit.  ‘  by  which  not,’  ‘  that  not,’ 


The  Subjunctive. 


205 


‘  lest.’  In  signification  it  is  nowise  different  from  qubminus.  In 
fact,  after  verbs  of  hindering  accompanied  by  a  negative,  qubminus 
and  qiun  may  be  used  interchangeably  without  difference  of  mean¬ 
ing.  Thus  Cic.  de  Sen.  17.  60  nec  aetas  impedit  qubminus  agri 
colendi  studia  teneamus,  ‘  nor  does  old  age  prevent  us  from  con¬ 
tinuing  the  pursuits  of  farming’ ;  but  Auct.  ad  Herenn.  iii.  1.  1  ne 
impediaris  quin  progredi  possis,  ‘  that  you  may  not  be  prevented 
from  being  able  to  advance.’ 

Clauses  introduced  by  quin  after  negative  expressions  of  hin¬ 
dering  are  sometimes  classified  as  Result  Clauses.  Such  a  clas¬ 
sification  is  inconsistent ;  for  te  impedio  qubminus  facias  is 
regularly  taken  by  all  grammarians  as  a  Purpose  Clause.  If  it 
is,  then  nec  te  impedio  qubminus  facias  must  also  be  a  Purpose 
Clause,  for  the  mere  prefixing  of  the  negative  to  impedio  cannot 
alter  the  relation  of  the  qubminus- clause  to  its  verb.  But  nec  te 
impedio  qubminus  facias  may  be  expressed  with  perfect  equiva¬ 
lence  by  nec  te  impedio  quin  facias.  Hence  the  two  types  should 
not  be  dissociated  in  treatment. 

It  is  of  course  true  that  in  its  developed  meaning  the  quin- 
clause  after  negative  expressions  of  hindering  does  at  times  seem 
to  indicate  a  (negative)  result,  eg.  nec  impediti  sunt  quin  face- 
rent  may  be  conceived  as  literally  meaning  ‘  nor  were  they  pre¬ 
vented  so  that  they  didn’t  do.’  But  this  conception  is  just  as 
possible  in  case  of  qubminus- clauses  after  negative  expressions  of 
hindering ,  and  even  more  so  in  case  of  qubminus- clauses  after 
affirmative  expressions  of  hindering.  Thus,  te  impedio  qubminus 
haec  facias  might  theoretically  be  conceived  as  meaning  ‘  I  hinder 
you  so  that  you  do  not  do  this.’  But  quo  minus  is  clearly  a  pur¬ 
pose  particle,  so  that  the  original  purpose  character  of  the  qubmi¬ 
nus  clause  seems  beyond  question.  Any  consistent  treatment  of 
Substantive  clauses  must  have  regard  to  their  origin,  not  merely 
to  the  English  rendering.  Thus,  in  a  sentence  like  eis  pei'suasit 
ut  exirent,  *  he  persuaded  them  to  go  out,’  the  ^/-clause  might 
seem  at  first  sight  to  indicate  a  Result,  but  an  examination  of 


206  Syntax. 

such  clauses  clearly  shows  that  they  are  developed  from  the 
Jussive. 

Clauses  introduced  by  ne  after  verbs  of  hindering  are  not  neces¬ 
sarily  developed  from  the  Jussive,  as  suggested  in  Gr.  §  295.  3. 
This  is  the  more  probable  view ;  but  it  is  also  possible  that,  like 
quominus  and  quin- clauses,  they  have  been  developed  from 
Purpose  Clauses. 

384.  Substantive  Clauses  after  Verbs  of  deciding,  resolving, 
etc.  ( Gr .  §  295.  4). — The  Volitive  origin  of  these  is  seen  in 
such  sentences  as  Sail.  Cat.  29.  2  senatus  decrevit  operam  darent 
consules,  ‘  the  senate  decreed  :  let  the  consuls  take  heed  !  ’  Ter. 
Eun.  578  idicit  ne  vir  qnisquam  ad  earn  adeat,  ‘he  issues  the 
order :  let  no  man  go  near  her  !  ’ 

385.  Substantive  Clauses  after  Verbs  of  striving,  caring  for, 
etc.  {Gr.  §  295.  5).  —  Expressions  like  fac  cogifes,  ‘see  to  this, 
reflect!’  (Sail.  Cat.  44.  5)  point  to  the  Volitive  origin  of  these 
clauses.  Curd  ne  quid  desit  originally  meant  ‘  Take  care  :  let 
nothing  be  wanting  !  ’ 

386.  Substantive  Clauses  after  necesse  est,  reliquum  est  and 
sequitur,  ‘it  remains,’  licet,  oportet  {Gr.  §  295.  6).  —  The  Volitive 
origin  of  the  Subjunctive  in  clauses  with  necesse  est,  licet,  oportet,  is 
seen  in  the  regular  retention  in  classical  prose  of  the  early  type  of 
expression  without  ut  (§  382),  viz.  ddcam  necesse  est,  ‘  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  that  I  speak’  (lit.,  let  me  speak ;  it  is  necessary’),  Cic.  de  Or. 
iii.  22.  85  ;  taceat  oporfehit,  ‘it  will  be  fitting  that  he  keep  silent’ 
(lit.  ‘let  him  keep  silent;  it  will  be  fitting’),  Cic.  de  Or.  iii.  21. 
79  ;  fatedre  necesse  est,  ‘confess  !  you  must,’  Lucr.  iii.  275. 

Where  sequitur  means  ‘  it  remains,’  ‘  the  next  thing  is,’  the  ut- 
clause  is  a  development  from  the  Volitive,  e.g.  sequitur  ut  doceam, 
‘  it  remains  for  me  to  show,’  Cic.  Nat.  De.  ii.  32.  80.1 


1  Sequitur  in  the  sense  ‘  it  follows  that  ’  takes  a  Substantive  Clause  of 
Result ;  §  390. 


The  Subjunctive . 


207 


So  also  with  reliquum  est e.g.  reliquum  est,  ut  egomet  mihi  con- 
sulam ,  ‘  it  remains  for  me  to  look  out  for  myself,’  Nep.  Att.  21.  5. 
This  view  of  these  clauses  is  confirmed  by  the  occurrence  of  the 
early  form  of  expression  without  ut  (§•  382),  eg.  Cic.  ad  Fam. 
xv.  21.  6  reliquum  est  tuam  profectionem  amove  prosequar } 

387.  Substantive  Clauses  in  Sentences  of  the  Type  :  nulla  causa 
est  cur,  nulla  causa  est  quare,  etc.  ( Gr .  §  295.  7).  —  These  have 
been  explained  as  developed  from  the  Deliberative.  This  is  the 
view,  among  others,  of  Schmalz  ( Lat .  Synt.  §  308),  and  is  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  history  of  these  clauses.  Cf.  eg.  Cic.  ad  Fam.  ii. 
17.  i  quin  decedam  nulla  causa  est,  originally  ‘  why  shouldn’t  I 
go  away  !  There’s  no  reason,’  later  ‘  there’s  no  reason  why  I 
shouldn’t  go  away.’  Cf.  Ter.  Andria  600  quid  causae  est,  quin 
in  pistrinum  proficiscar,  1  what  reason  is  there  why  I  shouldn’t 
set  out  for  the  mill !  ’  originally  ‘  what  reason  is  there  ?  Why 
shouldn’t  I  set  out?  ’ 

Substantive  Clauses  Developed  from  the  Optative. 

388.  After  Verbs  of  wishing  and  desiring  ( Gr .  §  296.  1). 
—  The  Optative  origin  of  these  Substantive  clauses  is  sufficiently 
evident.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  in  comedy  and  col¬ 
loquial  language  void  sometimes  has  the  force  of  commanding 
(cf.  the  English  authoritative  I  want,  eg.  in  I  want  you  to  under¬ 
stand').  In  such  cases  the  Substantive  clause  with  void  must  be 
referred  to  a  Volitive  origin,  e.g.  void  earn  ducas ,  ‘  I  want  you  to 
marry  her.’ 

389.  After  Verbs  of  fearing  (Gr.  §  296.  2).  —  Instructive  for 
the  history  of  the  construction  are  such  early  Latin  uses  as  Ter. 
Andr.  277  Hand  verear  si  in  te  sit  solo  si  turn  :  sed  ut  vim  queas 
ferre ,  ‘  I  should  not  fear,  if  it  were  to  depend  on  you  alone  ;  but 

1  Reliquum  est  in  the  sense  ‘  the  fact  remains  that  ’  takes  a  Substantive 
Clause  of  Result ;  §  390. 


208 


Syntax. 


may  you  be  able  to  withstand  compulsion  ’ ;  705  dies  hie  mi  ut 
satis  sit  vereor  ad  agendum ,  ‘  may  this  day  be  sufficient  (I’m 
afraid  though).’ 

Substantive  Clauses  of  Result. 

390.  Expressions  like  efficid  ut  intellegatis ,  lit.  ‘ 1  bring  it  to 
pass  (in  such  a  way)  that  you  know,’  and  accidit  ut  aegrotaret \ 

‘  it  so  happened  that  he  was  ill,’  show  clearly  the  origin  of  the 
Substantive  Clause  of  Result.  But  the  Result  notion  early  became 
weakened  in  these  clauses,  and  the  substantive  notion  became  so 
prominent  that  Substantive  Clauses  introduced  by  ut  occur  where 
not  only  no  notion  of  Result  exists,  but  where  it  never  could 
have  existed,  e.g.  verisimile  non  est  ut  ille  anteponeret ’,  ‘it’s  not 
likely  that  he  preferred  ’ ;  accredit  ut  doleam ,  ‘  another  fact  is  that 
I  am  suffering  ’ ;  praecldrum  est  ut  eos  aniemus,  ‘  it’s  a  noble 
thing  that  we  love  them  ’ ;  reliquum  est  ut  virtus  sit  frugalitas , 
‘  the  fact  remains  that  economy  is  a  virtute.’ 

Substantive  Clauses  Introduced  by  Quin. 

391.  In  the  expressions  non  dubito  quin,  quis  dub itat  quin,  non 
est  dubium  quin,  hand  dubium  est  quin,  the  quin- clause  is  prob¬ 
ably  developed  from  the  Deliberative  Subjunctive.  Thus  quis 
dubitat  quin  in  virtute  divitiae  sint  originally  meant  ‘  why  shouldn’t 
there  be  riches  in  virtue  !  who  doubts  it?’  It  seems  difficult  to 
find  any  ground  in  the  history  or  signification  of  these  clauses  for 
regarding  them  as  Clauses  of  Result. 

Indirect  Questions. 

392.  The  origin  of  the  Subjunctive  in  Indirect  Questions  is 
not  yet  clear.  The  construction  is  manifestly  a  relatively  late 
one  in  the  development  of  Latin  syntax.  Plautus  and  Terence 
more  frequently  employ  the  Indicative  in  such  sentences,  unless 
there  be  some  reason  for  the  Subjunctive. 


The  Subjunctive. 


209 


Conditional  Sentences. 

393.  The  treatment  in  the  Grammar  follows  the  traditional 
classification,  which  has  regard  exclusively  to  what  is  implied 
in  the  Protasis  in  each  instance. 

394.  Conditional  sentences  are  the  development  of  an  earlier 
Parataxis  (§  367).  Thus  we  may  assume  that  the  earliest  type 
of  si  valet ■  bene  est  was  bene  est,  valet ,  ‘  it  is  well ;  he  is  well.’ 
The  conditional  force  was  purely  the  result  of  the  context,  which 
indicated  that  valet  was  something  assumed.  As  language  devel¬ 
oped,  the  fact  that  one  clause  was  related  to  the  other  as  an 
assumption  or  condition  was  brought  out  more  definitely  by  the 
use  of  si  ;  yet  conditional  sentences  without  si  occur  with  more  or 
less  frequency  in  all  stages  of  the  Latin  language  ( Gr .  §  305.  2). 
They  are  simply  a  relic  of  the  earlier  paratactic  stage.  The  ori¬ 
gin  of  the  conjunctional  use  of  si  was  as  follows  :  Si  was  originally 
an  adverb  meaning  so.  It  is  etymologically  identical  with  English 
so,  and  by  formation  was  a  Locative,  *sva-i,  from  the  Indo-Euro¬ 
pean  root  sva-.  This  *svai  regularly  became  si ;  §  104.  2.  The 
most  primitive  type  of  a  conditional  sentence  with  si  would  be 
seen  in  be?ie  est  si,  valet,  i.e.  ‘it  is  well  so  {viz.  that),  he  is  well.’ 
In  this  expression  si  limits  bene  est,  and  valet  is  really  an  apposi- 
tive  of  the  adverbial  idea  in  si.  The  use  of  si  as  a  conjunction  is 
secondary  and  the  result  of  its  association.  With  si  cf.  English  so 
in  such  expressions  as  so  you  pay  me,  I  shall  be  satisfied. 

395.  Conditional  Sentences  of  the  Second  Type.  —  Here  thfe 
Subjunctive  in  the  Protasis  was  originally  Jussive  in  character. 
Thus  a  sentence  like  si  videat,  C7redat  would,  in  its  earliest  form, 
have  been  videat,  ciddat,  lit.  ‘  let  him  see  {i.e.  assuming  he  should 
see),  he  would  then  believe.’  The  Apodosis  is  the  Subjunctive  of 
Contingent  Futurity,  conventionally  called  ‘  Potential.’ 

396.  Conditional  Sentences  of  the  Third  Type.  —  The  origin 
of  this  type  is  obscure.  Perhaps  the  Protasis  was  originally  an 


2 1  o  Syntax. 

Optative,  i.e.  si  adesset,  bene  esset,  lit.  ‘  O  that  he  were  here  !  it 
would  be  well.’ 

The  employment  of  oportuit ,  decuit ,  debebam ,  and  of  the  Indic¬ 
ative  of  the  Periphrastic  Conjugations  in  Apodoses  of  Conditional 
Sentences  of  this  type  is  frequently  the  result  of  ellipsis.  Thus  in 
si  Pompejus  occisus  esset ,  fuistisne  ad  arma  ituri ,  the  thought  is 
‘  were  you  about  to  proceed  to  arms  (and  would  you  have  done 
so  ?)  had  Pompey  been  slain  ?  ’  So  in  eum  patris  loco  colei'e  debe- 
bas,  si  ulla  in  fe pietas  esset  the  full  sense  is  :  ‘it  was  your  duty  to 
revere  him  (and  you  would  now  be  doing  it),  had  you  any  sense 
of  devotion.’ 

Clauses  of  Proviso  with  Dum,  Modo,  Dummodo. 

397.  These  were  all  originally  Jussive.  Thus  in  manent  ingenia 
senibus,  modo  permanent  stadium  et  industria ,  the  original  sense 
was :  ‘  let  only  interest  and  vigor  remain !  (then)  old  men’s 
faculties  remain.’  Dum  was  originally  an  oblique  case  of  a  noun 
meaning  ‘while.’  Hence  in  oderint ,  dum  metuant ,  the  original 
sense  was  ‘  let  them  fear  the  while  !  (then)  they  may  hate.’  Some 
regard  the  clause  of  Proviso  with  dum  as  originally  temporal 
(‘while  ’).  But  that  view  fails  to  account  for  the  use  of  the  Sub¬ 
junctive,  and  also  ignores  the  fact  that  the  negative  with  the  dum- 
clause  of  Proviso  is  always  tie . 

Use  of  Moods  in  Relative  Clauses.1 

398.  A  relative  clause  represents  a  kind  of  subordination  which, 
in  its  original  and  simplest  form,  differs  from  co-ordination  only  in 
the  substitution  of  a  relative  pronoun,  adjective,  or  adverb  for  the 
corresponding  demonstrative  or  personal  pronoun.  The  expres¬ 
sion  ille  est  homo  qui  f  ecit,  ‘  he  is  the  man  who  did  it,’  is  in  every 
respect  exactly  like  ille  est  homo;  ille  fecit,  ‘he  is  the  man;  he 

1  This  treatment  of  Relative  Sentences  is  the  friendly  contribution  of  my 
colleague,  Professor  Elmer. 


Relative  Clauses. 


21 1 


did  it/  except  that  qui  has  taken  the  place  of  ille.  Such  a  transi¬ 
tion  from  parataxis  to  hypotaxis  is  well  illustrated  in  English  by 
the  history  of  the  word  that \  which,  though  originally  only  a 
demonstrative  pronoun,  has  come  to  be .  frequently  felt  also  as  a 
relative. 

The  earlier  history  of  the  Latin  language  shows  an  increasing 
fondness  for  the  relative  construction.  In  the  classical  period  this 
tendency  had  become  so  pronounced  that  the  relative  was  often 
used  to  introduce  a  sentence  that  was  logically  quite  independent, 
e.g.  Cic.  de  Sen.  3.  8  nec  hercule ,  si  ego  Seriphius  essem ,  nee  tu ,  si 
Atheniensis ,  clams  umquam  fuisses.  Quod  eodem  modo  de  senec- 
tiite  did  potest ,  —  instead  of  hoc  .  .  .  potest. 

This  use  of  the  relative  to  introduce  a  logically  independent 
sentence  is  almost  unknown  in  Plautus,  but  becomes  more  com¬ 
mon  in  Terence,  and  reaches  its  height  in  the  time  of  Cicero. 

While  relative  clauses  in  their  earliest  stage  could  be  replaced 
by  grammatically  independent  clauses,  they  gradually  acquired 
functions  which  the  corresponding  independent  clauses  did  not 
perform.  We  may  accordingly  divide  Relative  Clauses  (both 
Indicative  and  Subjunctive)  into  those  of  original  and  those 
of  developed  types. 

Indicative  Relative  Clauses. 

399.  An  Indicative  Relative  Clause  may  : 

1)  Inform  one  of  a  fact. 

2)  Refer  for  various  purposes  to  a  fact  presumably  already 
known. 

3)  Assume  a  fact. 

A.  Original  Uses. 

400.  1.  The  Determining  Clause. — This  apparently  was  used 
in  connection  with  some  object  to  which  the  speaker  was  pointing 
or  at  which  he  was  looking.  The  clause  then  identified  that  ob- 


212 


Syntax. 


ject  as  the  one  with  reference  to  which  the  act  or  state  expressed 
by  the  clause  was  true.  Two  independent  clauses,  each  intro¬ 
duced  by  a  demonstrative,  would  express  this  relation  equally 
well.  Cf.  That  is  the  man  that  did  it,  in  which  the  second  that 
originally  corresponded  exactly  to  the  Demonstrative  ille ,  but  later 
came  to  be  felt  as  subordinating  its  clause  and  so  equivalent  to  the 
Relative  qui. 

2.  Clauses  Adding  Information  or  a  Statement  of  Fact. — These 

may  be  subdivided  as  follows  : 

a)  Parenthetical  clauses  that  interrupt  for  a  moment  the  train 
of  thought,  e.g.  Livy  xxii.  13.  11  nec  abnuebant,  quod  unum  vin¬ 
culum  fidei  est,  melidribus  parere ,  ‘  nor  did  they  refuse  (and  this 
forms  the  only  bond  of  fidelity)  to  obey  their  betters.’ 

h)  Independent  clauses  that  carry  forward  the  train  of  thought, 
eg.  nec  hercule ,  si  ego  Seriphius  esse?n,  nec  tu,  si  Atheniensis,  clarus 
umquam  fuisses.  Quod  eodem  modo  de  senectute  did  potest. 

3.  Causal  and  Adversative  Clauses.  —  It  is  commonly  stated 
that  these  clauses  require  the  Subjunctive ;  yet  they  often  admit 
the  Indicative,  eg.  (causal)  Cic.  ad  Att.  xiii.  30  O  fe  ferreum  qui 
ilfius  periculis  non  moveris ,  ‘O  you  hard-hearted  man,  who  (i.e. 
since  you)  are  not  moved’ ;  (adversative)  Cic.  Phil.  i.  9.  23  quae 
quidem  ego,  qui  ilia  numquam  probavi,  tamen  conservanda  arbitra- 
tus  stmt,  ‘  enactments  which,  though  I  never  approved  them,  I 
nevertheless  thought  ought  to  be  maintained.’  See  Hale,  The  Cum- 
Constructions,  p.  114  ff.  The  difference  between  the  Indicative 
and  the  Subjunctive  in  such  clauses  seems  to  be  that  the  Indicative 
calls  to  mind  the  fact  without  special  reference  to  its  logical  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  principal  clause,  while  the  Subjunctive  brings  this 
relation  into  prominence. 

B.  Developed  Uses. 

401.  1.  Determining  Clause  of  the  Developed  Type. — This 

clause  serves  as  a  means  by  which,  without  further  aid,  one  may 
distinguish  from  all  other  objects  one  particular  object  (or  sev- 


Relative  Clauses , 


213 


eral  particular  objects).  For  this  purpose  it  mentions  some  act 
or  state  which  is,  for  the  moment  at  least,  exclusively  associated 
with  the  object  referred  to,  e.g.  ille  qui  in  Catilinam  dratidnes 
scripsit  annos  tres  et  sexaginta  vixit.  This  sentence  cannot  be 
divided  into  two  independent  assertions,  as  can  the  clause  of  the 
original  type.  Two  such  sentences  as  ille  in  Catilinam  dratidnes 
scripsit ;  ille  annos  tres  et  sexaginta  vixit,  would,  without  the 
presence  of  the  person  referred  to  or  further  explanation,  be 
meaningless.  On  the  other  hand,  the  clause  with  the  Relative  is 
complete  in  itself. 

2.  Clause  Equivalent  to  Si  with  the  Indicative. — This  clause 
deals  not  with  any  individual  case,  but  with  an  assumed  indefinite 
case.  It  takes  the  Indicative  wherever  a  .fi-clause  would  take 
this  mood  under  similar  circumstances,  eg.  qui  valet,  fortunatus 
est,  1  the  man  who  has  good  health  is  blest  ’  (=  si  quis  valet,  etc.). 
This  usage  probably  arose  through  the  medium  of  the  determin¬ 
ing  clause. 

3.  Restrictive  Clauses  having  Attinet,  Est,  Potest,  as  their 
Verb,  e.g.  ut  se  tota  res  habeat,  quod  ad  earn  civitdtem  attinet, 
demonstrabitur,  ‘  how  the  whole  matter  stands  as  regards  that 
state,  will  be  shown.’  For  the  Subjunctive  in  restrictive  clauses, 
see  §  406.  1.  n.  1. 

402.  It  should  be  carefully  noted  that  any  Indicative  relative 
clause  of  whatever  type  may  characterize  the  antecedent  of  the 
Relative.  Examples : 

1)  Determining  and  characterizing,  turn  p?runum  repei'ta  sunt 
quae  per  tot  annos  rem  publicam  exedere,  here  ‘  the  (particular) 
things  which,’  etc .  This  ^^<?-clause  is  primarily  determinative, 
incidentally  characterizing.  If  it  had  had  the  Subjunctive  exede- 
rint,  the  clause  would  have  been  primarily  characterizing  and  the 
meaning  would  have  been  :  *  things  were  found  which  ’  instead  of 
‘  the  (particular)  things  which.’  See  below  under  Subjunctive 
uses,  §  406.  1. 


214 


Syntax . 


-  2)  Parenthetical  and  characterizing,  eg.  ego ,  qui  sum  longe  por¬ 
tion,  fam~e  pered.  Here  the  qui- clause  is  a  parenthetical  statement 
that  characterizes  the  antecedent.  It  may  be  laid  down  as  a  rule 
(to  which  exceptions  are  rare)  that  a  characterizing  clause  takes 
the  Indicative  when  it  may  be  dropped  without  impairing  the 
sense  of  the  main  clause.  In  the  sentence  last  given,  ego  pered 
fame  is  complete  in  itself  without  the  addition  of  the  y?//-clause. 
See  Hale,  The  Cum- Constructions ,  pp.  85,  94,  138. 

3)  Conditional  and  characterizing,  eg.  neque  enim  est  Tilla  forti- 
tudo,  quae  rationis  est  expers ,  ‘  for  there  is  no  bravery,  which 
lacks  reason,’  i.e.  ‘  if  it  lacks  reason,’  whence  the  Indicative. 
In  such  conditional  clauses,  however  strongly  characterizing  they 
may  be,  the  Subjunctive  is  rare  and  confined  almost  exclusively 
to  clauses  with  negative  antecedents.  See  Hale,  The  Cum- 
Co  ns  tractions,  p .  133. 

We  may  say,  generally  speaking,  that  three  things  are  neces¬ 
sary  to  throw  a  characterizing  clause  into  the  Subjunctive  (except 
where  the  Subjunctive  would  be  used  in  the  corresponding  para- 
tactical  form  of  expression)  :  First,  it  must  be  essential  to  the 
thought  of  the  main  clause ;  secondly,  its  characterizing  function 
must  be  primary,  not  incidental ;  thirdly,  it  must  not  be  equiva¬ 
lent  to  an  Indicative  clause  with  sj.  Characterizing  clauses  that 
do  not  fulfil  these  three  conditions  stand,  with  rare  exceptions, 
in  the  Indicative. 


Subjunctive  Relative  Clauses. 

403.  A  Subjunctive  Relative  Clause  may  give  expression  : 

1)  To  somebody’s  will. 

2)  To  a  possibility. 

3)  To  a  future  contingency. 

4)  To  actual  facts  (with  or  without  a  causal  or  adversative 
bearing  upon  the  main  clause). 

Any  one  of  these  clauses  may  be  used  to  characterize  the  ante¬ 
cedent  of  the  Relative. 


Relative  Clauses. 


215 


A.  Original  Uses. 

404.  1.  Representing  an  Independent  Volitive.  • 

a)  Relative  Clause  of  Purpose,  e.g.  milifes  mis  si  sunt  qui  oppi- 
dum  capiant ',  1  the  soldiers  have  been  sent  to  take  the  town.’  The 
qui- clause  here  represents  an  independent  illi  capiant \  ‘  they  shall 
take  (let  them  take)  the  town.’  Cf.  the  identical  development  of 
///-clauses  of  Purpose,  §  368. 

b )  Volitive  Characterizing  Clause,  e.g.  Cic.  de  Sen.  43  qui  judi- 
cdbant  esse  project'd  aliquid  natura  pulchrum  atque  praeclarum , 
quod  sud  sponte  peteretur ,  quodque  optimus  quisque  sequefetur , 
1  these  were  of  opinion  that  there  surely  existed  some  lofty  and 
noble  ideal,  to  be  sought  for  its  own  sake,  and  for  all  the  best  men 
to  pursue.’  The  ^//////-clauses  here  represent  independent  Volitive 
Subjunctives  meaning :  ‘  let  this  be  sought  ’ ;  ‘let  all  good  men 
pursue  this.’  Such  clauses  should  be  carefully  distinguished  from 
relative  clauses  denoting  pure  purpose,  as  in  the  example  given 
under  a). 

c)  Clause  equivalent  to  si  with  the  Subjunctive.  Examples : 
niilla  tam  facilis  res,  quin  difficilis  siet,  quam  invitus  facias , 
‘nothing  is  so  easy  that  it  does  not  become  difficult,  if  you  do  it 
against  your  will,’  lit.  ‘  assuming  you  do  it  ’ ;  philosophia,  cui  qui 
pareat  omne  tempus  sine  molestia  possit  degere,  i.e.  if  one  should 
obey  philosophy,  etc. 

For  further  illustration  of  the  Volitive  Origin  of  such  clauses, 
see  §  395. 

2.  Characterizing  Clause  Representing  an  Independent  Potential, 

e.g.  est  unde  fiat,  ‘  there  exists  that  by  means  of  which  it  may 
(can)  be  done.’  The  unde  fiat  here  represents  an  independent 
inde  fiat,  ‘by  that  means  it  may  (can)  be  done,’  which  ascribes 
certain  possibilities  to  the  means  referred  to  in  inde,  i.e.  charac¬ 
terizes  them. 

This  form  of  clause  is  rare,  its  place  being  commonly  taken  by 
some  form  of  potest  with  the  Infinitive. 


* 


21 6  Syntax. 

3.  Clauses  Developed  from  a  Subjunctive  of  Contingent 
Futurity. 

a)  Characterizing  Clause  of  Contingent  Futurity,  eg.  ille  est  qui 
non  mentiatur ,  ‘that’s  a  man  who  would  not  deceive.’  Here  qui 
non  mentiatur  represents  an  independent  ille  non  mentiatur ,  ‘  that 
man  would  not  deceive.’ 

b)  Characterizing  Clause  of  Obligation  or  Propriety,  eg.  nihil 
est  quod  gaudeas,  originally,  ‘  there  is  no  reason  why  one  would 
rejoice  (if  one  were  to  act  with  propriety),’  hence  ‘no  reason  why 
one  should  rejoice,  ought  to  rejoice.’ 

405.  Hale,  in  his  recently  published  Anticipatory  Subjunctive 
in  Greek  and  Latin ,  expresses  himself  in  favor  of  recognizing  a 
new  class  of  relative  clauses  developed  from  the  Anticipatory  Sub¬ 
junctive,  i.e.  from  the  phase  of  the  Indo-European  Subjunctive 
which  had  pure  Future  force  (see  §  354).  As  illustrations  of  this 
type  he  cites:  Vergil,  Aen.  i.  286  f.  nascetur  pulchra  Trojanus 
origine  Caesar ,  imperium  Oceano ,  famam  qui  terminet  astris, 
‘who  shall  bound,’  etc.;  Eclogues ,  4.  34  f.  alter  erit  turn  Tiphys , 
et  altera  quae  vehat  Argo  del ec tbs  Kerb  as ,  ‘  and  a  second  Argo, 
which  shall  carry,’  etc.  Others  regard  such  clauses  as  a  secondary 
development  of  Purpose  Clauses. 

B.  Developed  Uses. 

406.  These  are  all  outgrowths  of  the  Subjunctive  of  Contingent 
Futurity.  Here  belong : 

1.  Characterizing  Clauses  Asserting  an  Actual  Fact  (techni¬ 
cally  designated  as  ‘The  Clause  of  Characteristic’;  Grammar , 
§283;  App.  §  370),  eg.  ille  est  qui  non  mentiatur ,  ‘he’s  a  man 
who  doesn’t  deceive.’  This  represents  an  easy  transition  from  the 
original  meaning  of  such  clauses  (cf.  §  404.  3.  a),  viz.  ‘a  man  who 
would  not  deceive  (under  any  circumstances) .’ 

Note  i.  A  still  further  development  of  these  clauses  is  repre¬ 
sented  by  such  expressions  as  C atonis  brationes  quas  quidem  inve - 


Relative  Clauses. 


2i  7 


nerim ,  lit.  *  the  speeches  of  Cato  that  I  have  discovered,’  i.e.  1  at 
least  so  far  as  I  have  discovered  them.’  Here  the  characterizing 
clause  has  weakened  into  one  that  merely  restricts.  Strictly 
speaking,  the  discovery  of  the  speeches  has  nothing  to  do  with 
their  character. 

Note  2.  A  clause  that  is  primarily  characterizing  may  be  inci¬ 
dentally  determinative.  See  §  402. 

2.  Causal  Clauses,  e.g.  miserum  senem ,  qui  tam  longa  in  vita 
mortem  contemnendam  esse  non  videris ,  1 0  pitiable  old  man,  who 
(since  you)  have  not  even  in  so  long  a  life  discovered  that  death 
ought  to  be  regarded  with  indifference.’  This  use  probably  began 
with  some  such  expression  as  Clodius  contemnendus  esi,  qui 
quaelibet  faciat ,  ut  inimicum  expellat ,  ‘  Clodius  should  be  treated 
with  scorn,  who  ( since  he)  would  stoop  to  anything  whatever 
to  get  rid  of  a  personal  foe.’  Such  a  qui- clause  would  easily  come 
to  mean  ‘  who  stoops  to  anything,’  etc.  A  feeling  might  then 
naturally  arise  that  any  qui- clause  bearing  a  causal  relation  to  the 
main  clause  might  take  the  Subjunctive. 

For  the  difference  of  meaning  between  the  Indicative  and  the 
•  Subjunctive  in  causal  y&I-clauses,  see  §  400.  3. 

3.  Adversative  Clauses.  —  The  Subjunctive  in  these  clauses 
has  had  a  history  similar  in  every  way  to  that  of  the  Subjunctive 
in  causal  clauses. 

For  the  difference  of  meaning  between  the  Indicative  and  the 
Subjunctive  in  adversative  ^//I-clauses,  see  §  400.  3. 

407.  It  will  be  understood  that  what  has  been  said  of  qui- 
clauses  applies  equally  to  relative  clauses  introduced  by  ubi ,  quo , 
unde,  etc. 


INDEX  TO  APPENDIX.1 


The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


A. 

a,  pronunciation,  4. 
a,  changes,  71. 
a-Series,  68. 
a,  72. 

a-Series,  66. 
a,  '  from,’  261. 
a-Stems,  m  f. 
ab,  93.  2 ;  96.  1 ;  261. 
abjeiis,  15  c. 

Ablative,  331  f. 

- absolute,  347. 

- of  accompaniment,  336. 

- of  accordance,  340. 

- of  agent,  333. 

- of  association,  337. 

- of  attendant  circumstance,  338. 

- of  cause,  342. 

- of  comparison,  334. 

- of  degree  of  difference,  343. 

- of  duration  of  time  which,  350. 

- of  manner,  339. 

- of  means,  341. 

- of  price,  344. 

- of  quality,  345. 

- of  separation,  333. 

- of  source,  333. 

- of  specification,  346. 

- of  time  at  which,  350. 

- of  time  within  which,  350. 

- of  way  by  which,  341.  5. 

Ablatlvus,  297. 

Ablaut,  62  f. 

- in  case-endings,  70. 

- in  suffixes  70. 


Ablaut-Series,  62  f. 
abluo,  103.  4. 

-abrum,  -acrum,  -atrum,  51.  1. 
abs,  261. 

Accent,  54  f. 
accestis ,  47.  2. 

Accusative,  syntax,  303  ff. 

- original  force,  311. 

- of  person  or  thing  affected,  303. 

- of  result  produced,  303  ;  305  ;  306. 

- with  passive  used  as  middle,  304. 

- synecdochical,  307. 

- Greek,  307. 

- in  exclamations,  308. 

- as  subject  of  inf.,  309. 

Accusativus,  297. 
acer,  92  ;  100.  3. 
acerbus,  100.  3. 
acerrimus,  182.  3. 

ad,  262. 

- in  composition,  58.  a. 

Adjectives,  hi  ff. 
admodum,  259. 
admoneo,  with  genitive,  326. 

Adverbs,  253  f. 

- in  -e,  130. 

- in  e,  257. 

- in  -5,  130. 

- in  -b,  257. 

Adversative  clauses,  406.  3. 

- in  indicative,  400.  3. 

adversus ;  258. 

ae,  pronunciation,  10. 
aedes,  97.  2.  b. 
aegrotus,  203.  VII.  d. 

Aesculapius,  91. 


1  For  words  containing  hidden  quantities  and  for  words  of  doubtful  or  varied  spelling,  see 
the  special  lists,  p.  52  and  p.  79. 


219 


220 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


aestus,  68. 
af  261.  5. 
agceps,  20.  1. 
agellus ,  100.  3  ;  106.  2. 
ager,  92 ;  100.  3. 
dggiihts,  20.  1. 
agricola,  112.  2. 
ai,  86. 

ai,  changes,  80. 

- earlier  form  of  ae,  10.  1. 

-al,  88.  2. 
al  for  /,  100.  1. 

_  O 

ala,  89 ;  105.  2. 
aliquid,  254.  1. 
allium,  88.  1. 
alnus,  105.  1. 

Alphabet,  1. 
amarem,  222,  3. 
a?nbi~,  263. 
ambo,  97.  1.  b. 
a?nem,  222. 
an  for  n,  102.  2. 
an  ceps,  92. 
ango ,  97.  3.  A. 
ani?nal,  93. 
dnser,  23  ;  97.  3.  A. 
antae,  102.  2. 
ante,  264. 

ante?nnae,  106.  4.  tr. 
antequam,  with  subjunctive,  380. 
Anticipatory  subjunctive,  380;  405. 
anticus,  57.  2.  N. 

Antisigma,  1.  5. 

Aorist  Optative,  219. 

- sigmatic,  200.  3. 

- strong,  200.  2. 

aperio ,  96.  1 ;  261.  2. 
apex,  36.  3. 

Apocope,  93. 
a/«<f,  265. 

-ar,  88.  2. 

ar-,  262. 

ar,  for  r ,  100.  2. 

O 

arbiter,  262. 
arbosem,  98.  1. 
ardor,  92. 
arefacio,  204. 
arfuerunt,  262. 

-ar/-  for  -a//-,  99, 
armus,  100.  2. 
ara,  203.  VII.  a 
ar.fi,  105.  1. 


arversus,  262. 

Aspirates,  31 ;  97. 
asporto,  105.  1. 
as  (s'),  109.  2. 

Assimilation  of  consonants,  106. 

- of  vowels,  90. 

attingo,  71.  5. 
au,  86. 

a«,  pronunciation,  12. 
au,  changes,  84. 
au-,  261. 
auceps,  92. 
audiam,  221. 
audios,  222.  2. 
audirem,  222.  3. 
auferd,  261.  3. 
aufugio,  261.  3. 

Augment,  200.  I. 
ausirn,  219. 
auspex,  92. 
aut,  93. 

B. 

96.  1. 

pronunciation,  27. 
bacca,  88.  1. 
basium,  98.  3. 
belli,  256.  1. 

257.  2. 

bk  (Indo-Eur.),  97,  1. 

96.  1 ;  203.  2. 
bimestris,  105.  1. 
bint,  185.  2. 
bis,  186.  2. 

180.  3. 

Bosphorus,  31.  3. 

-br-  for  -sr-,  108.  3. 
bracca,  88.  1. 

Breves  Breviantes,  88.  3. 
breviter,  259. 
bruma,  182.  1. 
bucca,  88.  1. 


c,  pronunciation,  25. 
C.=  Gains,  1.  3. 

Q.— centum,  1.4. 
caecus,  n. 
caedb,  104.  1.  b. 
caelebs,  11. 
caelum,  11. 


221 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


caerimonia,  11. 
caeruleus ,  99. 
caesaries ,  98.  3. 
calamitosus,  no. 
calcar ,  93. 

capid ,  103.  2;  203.  VII. 

Cardinal  numerals,  183. 

Cases,  295  ff. 

- ,  names,  296. 

Case-endings,  see  a-stems,  0-stems,  etc. 
Case-theories,  298  ff. 

Castorus,  138. 
catus,  67. 

Cauneas=cav{e)  n(e)  e as,  16.  1.  h. 

Causal  clauses,  377 ;  406.  2. 

- in  Indicative,  400.  3. 

- introduced  by  cum ,  378. 

causa ,  98.  2. 
cedo,  88.  3. 
cena,  11. 

centesimus ,  184.  9. 
centum ,  106.  4;  183.  14. 
ceteri,  11. 

Cethegus ,  31.  3. 

<:<?#<?,  108.  I. 
ch,  31.  2. 
circa ,  266. 
circiter ,  266. 
circum ,  266. 

267. 

citer,  1 81. 
citimus,  182.  2. 

0/7#,  88.  3  ;  257. 1. 
cz/ra,  255.  3  ;  267.  1. 
f/d«,  268. 

Claudius  as  grammarian,  1.  5  ;  16.  5. 
Clauses  of  Characteristic,  370;  406. 

- ,  distinguished  from  relative  clauses 

of  purpose,  371. 

- denoting  cause  or  opposition,  372. 

- introduced  by  quin,  373. 

- of  obligation  or  propriety,  404.  3.  b. 

-clo-  for  -tlo-,  95.  1. 

Clodius,  84.  1. 
cludo,  87.  2. 

Cn.=  Gnaeus,  1.  3. 

co-  in  compounds,  58.  b.  6. 

cd-  in  compounds,  58.  b.  6. 

cocus,  57.  2.  N. 

coemeterium,  11. 

coepi,  206.  2. 

cognomen,  104.  1.  a. 


cognosco,  105.  1. 

com-,  con,  in  composition,  58.  b. 
Comparative  Degree,  181. 

Comparison,  181  f. 

Compensatory  Lengthening,  89. 
compled ,  with  genitive,  330. 

Concessive  Subjunctive,  358./;  ;  364. 
conclausus,  87.  1. 
condicid,  25.  3. 

Conditional  Sentences,  393  f. 
conditus,  65. 

confido  with  ablative,  349.  2. 
Conjugation,  200  ff. 
consistere  with  ablative,  341.  3. 
Consonant  changes,  104  ff. 

Consonant  stems,  137  ff. 

- that  have  partially  adapted  them¬ 
selves  to  z-stems,  159. 

Consonants,  15  ff. ;  94  ff. 

Consonants  doubled,  34. 

- final,  109. 

constdre, 1  consist  of,’  341.  3. 

- ,  ‘  cost,’  344. 

contempsi,  108.  2. 
conte7nptus,  108.  2. 
continue,  with  ablative,  341.  3. 
Contingent  Future,  355.  b. 
contio,  103.  3. 
contra,  255.  3. 
contybernalis,  6.  2. 
convtcium,  25.  3. 
coquo ,  96.  1. 

cor,  109.  3. 
corp7ilenti(s,  108.  4. 

cos,  67. 

coventio,  103.  3. 
crdtis,  100.  2. 
cresco,  203.  VI. 
cribrum,  97.  2.  c. 

-cro-,  for  -clo-,  95.  1 ;  99. 
cui,  14 ;  198.  4. 
cujus,  198.  3. 
c ulleus,  88.  1. 
z:«;«-Clauses,  379. 
cuppa,  88.  1. 
curdjnus,  203.  VII.  b. 
curtus,  100.  2. 
curvus,  100.  2. 

D. 

d,  95- 

d,  pronunciation,  28 


222 


Index  to  Appendix . 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


D  =  500,  I.  4. 
dacruma,  95.  2. 
damma,  88.  1. 

Dative,  312  f. 

- of  agency,  318. 

- of  indirect  object,  313. 

- of  possession,  318. 

- of  purpose,  319. 

- of  reference,  316. 

- with  compounds,  315. 

- with  verbs  signifying  ‘  favor,’  *  help,’ 

etc.,  314. 

Dativus,  297. 
de,  27  x. 

debilitare ,  no. 
decern ,  102.  1 ;  183.  10. 
decimus,  184.  5. 

Declension,  111  ff. 

De-composition,  87.  2. 

delector ,  with  the  ablative,  349.  2. 

Deliberative  Subjunctive,  358.  e ;  363. 

Demonstrative  Pronouns,  191  ff. 

deni,  185.  2. 

dentio,  110. 

denuo,  103.  4 ;  259. 

Determining  Clauses,  400 ;  401. 
dk  (Indo-Eur.),  97.  2. 

-d/ilo-,  97.  2.  c. 
die,  223. 
died,  82. 
didici,  206.  1. 
die,  173. 

Diespiter,  180.  4. 
dignus,  94.  3. 

- ,  with  y«z-clause,  368.  5. 

dingua,  95.  2. 

Diphthongs,  10  ff. ;  80  ff. 

Diphthongal  stems,  180. 
dirimo,  98.  1. 

dis-  not  dis-  in  compounds,  48. 
disco,  64 ;  105.  1. 

Dissimilation  of  syllables,  110. 

Distributive  numerals,  185. 

divissio ,  98.  2. 

divus,  82. 

dixi,  208. 

dlxiin,  219. 

dixo,  205.  3. 

dixti,  47.  2. 

do,  202.  1. 

doceo,  203.  VII.  c. 

domdmus ,  203.  VII.  b. 


domi,  256.  1. 
domui,  103.  4. 

donee,  with  Subjunctive,  380. 

Double  consonants,  32  f. 

Doubled  consonants,  34. 

drachuma,  91. 

due,  223. 

ducenti,  183.  15. 

duel,  64. 

duim,  218. 

dum,  introducing  a  Proviso,  397. 
dum,  temporal,  380. 
duo,  183.  2. 
dvis,  186.  2. 

E. 

e,  pronunciation,  5. 
e,  from  d,  71.  x. 
e,  from  i,  75. 

I  e,  changes,  73. 
j  2-Series,  64  f. 

|  74- 

e,  ‘from,’  origin,  105.  2. 

2-Series,  65.. 

2-Stems,  172  f. 

ea,  192.  2.  b. 

ed,  192.  6. 

ea  (adverb),  255.  3. 

eadem  (adverb),  255.  3. 

earn,  192.  5. 

eapse,  196. 

ec -,  273. 

eeferri,  105.  x. 

ecus,  57.  1.  d. 

edi,  206.  2. 

edini,  218. 

edd,  202.  4. 

*/-.  273- 
egi,  206.  2. 
ego,  187.  1. 
ei,  82. 
ei,  86. 
ei,  192.  4. 
ejus,  192.  3. 

Eleven,  etc.,  183.  11. 

-el lus,  51.  2. 
em  for  m,  102.  1. 
emi,  206.  2. 
emptus,  108.  2. 
e n  for  n,  102.  1. 
endo,  275. 
ed,  192.  6. 


223 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


eo ,  '  go,’  202.  2. 
edpse ,  196. 

-epi,  206.  2. 
equdbus,  122. 
equus,  57.  2. 

-£r,  88.  2. 

for  r,  100.  3. 
eram,  204. 

-er cuius,  51.  5. 
erga,  ergo ,  272. 

-emus.  51.  3. 
erb,  205.  3. 

23. 

est  (edo),  50.  2;  202.  4. 
109.  2. 

243. 

essern,  222.  3. 

-estus,  51.  4. 

et,  93- 

Ethical  Dative,  317. 

eu,  85. 

eu,  pronunciation,  13 . 

eu,  86. 

eum,  192.  5. 

eumpse,  196. 

ex,  273  '•  261.  2- 

ex,  in  Composition,  58.  c. 

exaequo,  87.  1. 

exemplar  is,  99. 

exemplum,  108.  2. 

existumo,  80.  2. 

exquaero,  87.  1. 

exstrd{d),  255.  3. 

exsultd,  71.  2,- 

ex  ter  us,  18 1. 

extimus ,  182.  2. 

extra,  255.  3. 

extrenius,  182.  1. 

F. 

f,  pronunciation,  21. 
f  origin  of  letter,  1.  3. 
fac,  223. 
facile,  254.  1. 
facillimus ,  182.  3. 
fbgus,  97.  1.  a. 
familias,  113. 
famulus,  91. 
fanum,  65. 
fari ,  97.  1.  a. 
far{r),  109.  2. 
faxim ,  219. 


A-W,  205.  3. 
fel{l),  109.  2. 
femina,  11;  97.  2.  a. 
feres,  222.  2. 
fero,  97.  1.  a. ;  202.  5. 
feme,  106.  3 ;  243. 
ferrem ,  222.  3. 
f  estus,  65. 
fidl,  206.  1. 
fido,  64 ;  82. 

- with  ablative,  349.  2. 

filiabus,  122. 
filius,  90. 

Final  Consonants,  109. 
findo,  203.  IV. 
fingb,  97.  3.  A. 
finbnus,  203.  VII. 
fix  us,  108.  1. 
flecto,  203.  III. 
foedus,  64;  81.  1. 
fons,fbntis,  41. 
fords,  254.  3. 
forts,  256.  2. 
formus,  97.  3.  B. 
forte1  257.  3. 
for  tunas,  113. 
forum,  97.  2.  a. 
from,  frbntis,  41. 
fruor,  with  ablative,  341.  1. 
fui,  97.  1.  a\  210. 
fulmentum,  105.  1. 
fumus,  97.  2.  a. 
fundo,  97.  3.  A. ;  107. 
funebris,  108.  3. 
fungor,  with  ablative,  341.  1. 
furuos  (  =  furvos] ,  98.  2. 
futtilis,  88.  1. 

Future  Indicative,  200.  6;  205. 
Future  Perfect  Indicative,  216. 
fuvi,  210. 

G. 

g,  94- 

g,  pronunciation,  29. 
g,  earliest  form,  1.  3. 
gaudeo,  86.  a. 

gaudeo,  with  ablative,  349.  2. 
gemma,  106.  2. 

Genetivus,  297. 

Genitive,  original  force,  320. 

- with  adjectives,  323. 

- with  nouns,  321. 


224 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


Genitive,  of  quality,  322. 

- with  verbs,  324  ff. 

genus ,  70. 
gerd,  98.  1. 

Gerund)  252.  1. 
gg,  for  ng,  20.  1. 
gh  (Indo-Eur.),  97.  3. 
gigno,  203.  II. 
glisco,  203.  VI. 

glorior ,  with  the  ablative,  349.  2. 
gluttlre ,  88.  1. 
gluttus ,  88.  1. 

gm,  quantity  of  vowel  before,  39. 

-gm-  for  -cm-,  94.  3. 

gn,  pronunciation,  20.  4. 

gn,  quantity  of  vowel  before,  38. 

-gn-  for  -cn-,  94.  3. 

Gnaivod,  109.  1. 
gndrus,  102.  2. 

■gnatus,  102.  2;  104.  I. 
g nosed,  203.  VI. 
gnotus,  104.  1. 

Gracchus,  31.  3. 
gradior,  97.  3.  B. 

Grammatical  theory  of  the  cases,  301. 
grus,  17 1.  2. 

Guttural,  distinguished  from  Palatal,  30. 
Gutturals,  94  f. 

H. 

h,  pronunciation,  23. 
hac,  191.  6. 

haec  (Fern.),  191.  2.  b. 
haec  (Neut.),  191.  7. 
hallucinari ,  88.  1. 
hanc,  191.  5. 
harena,  23. 

Hartung’s  theory  of  the  cases,  299. 

haruspex,  23. 

helluo,  88.  1. 

heri,  256.  1. 

hie,  19 1. 

hie  (Adverb),  256.  1. 

Hidden  Quantity,  36  f. 
hiems,  97.  3.  A. 
kiseb,  203.  VI. 
hoc,  191.  2.  c. 
hoc  (Ablative),  191.  6. 
hoc(c),  109.  2. 
bolus,  23  ;  97.  3.  A. 
honor  us,  138. 

Hortatory  Subjunctive,  358.  c. 


host  is,  97.  3.  B. 
huic,  191.  4. 
hujus,  191.  3. 
humi,  256.  1. 
hunc,  191.  5. 

Hypotaxis,  367. 

I. 

i,  pronunciation,  6. 

*>  *,  75- 

i  from  ai,  80.  2. 
i  from  ei,  82. 
i  from  oi,  81.2. 
i  from  u,  78. 
t  from  a,  71.  2 ;  5. 

*  from  e,  73. 
i  for  j,  103.  2. 
i  ednsondns,  15.  1.  a. 
i  longa,  36.  3. 
z-Stems,  171. 
i-Stems,  148  ff. 
id,  192.  2.  c. 
idem,  192.  8. 
id  genus,  310.  1. 

idoneus,  followed  by  ywz-clause,  368.  5. 
idus,  68. 

-ibis,  - ies ,  186.  5. 
ignosed,  105.  1. 
ij  for  j,  15.  3. 
ilicet,  204. 

Hied,  259. 
illacrymant,  6.  2. 

Me,  195  I  1 97 • 

illic,  256.  1. 

-Ulus,  51.  2. 
illustris,  105.  1. 

Imperative,  formation,  223  f. 

Imperfect,  Indicative,  200.  6;  204. 

- Subjunctive,  222.  3. 

implemus,  203.  VII.  b. 
impleo,  with  genitive,  330. 
impluo,  103.  4. 
in,  275. 

in,  in  composition,  58.  d. 
incertus,  100.  3. 

Inchoatives,  49. 

Indefinite  Pronoun,  198. 
indiged,  with  genitive,  330. 
indigenus,  275. 

indignus,  followed  by  ywl-clause,  368.  5 
Indirect  Questions,  392. 
indoles,  275. 


225 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


indu-,  275. 
indugredi ,  275. 
indud,  103.  4. 

Infinitive,  formation,  243  ff. 

- in  -re,  243. 

- in  -isse,  244. 

- in  -ri,  -i,  246. 

- in  -ter,  246. 

Inflections,  111  ff. 

Infra,  255.  3. 
inquiro,  80.  2. 

Instrumental  case,  331 ;  332  ;  335. 

- uses  of  the  Ablative,  335  ff. 

intellego,  87.  1. 
inteliigo,  87.  I. 
inter,  277. 

interest,  with  the  ablative,  349.  3. 

- with  the  genitive,  329. 

interieisti,  50.  3. 

Interrogative  Prbnoun,  198. 
intimus,  182.  2. 
intramus,  203.  VII.  b. 
intus,  278. 
ipse,  196;  197. 
is,  192. 

-issirnus,  43 182.  3. 
iste,  194 ;  197. 

-is ter,  51.  4. 
is  tic,  256.  1. 

J- 

/.  103. 

j,  pronunciation,  15. 
j ,  defence  of  the  character,  2. 
jacid,  203.  VII. 

- in  compounds,  60. 

70-class  of  verbs,  203.  VII. 
jucundus,  103.  3. 
jungo,  203.  IV. 
junior,  103.  3. 

Jupiter,  104.  1 ;  180.  4. 

Juppiter,  88.  1. 

Jussive  Subjunctive,  358.  a;  362. 
jussus,  106.  2. 
justl,  47.  2. 
juxta,  255.  3  ;  279. 


/,  pronunciation,  17. 
/,  earliest  form,  1.  1. 
L  =  50,  1. 4. 


I  for  r,  99. 
i  /,  100. 

la  for  7,  100.  1. 
lac,  104.  1 ;  109.  3. 
lacruma,  6.  2;  95.  2. 
laetor  with  the  ablative,  349.  2. 

/a«a,  100.  1. 

lapillus,  106.  2. 

lapsus,  108.  1. 

larua,  16.  1.  e. 

larva,  98.  1. 

latrina,  103.  3. 

latus,  100.  1;  104.  1.  b. 

lavacrum,  95.  1. 

legimini  (Imperative),  227. 

Lengthening  of  vowels,  89. 

levir,  95.  2. 

libertabus,  122. 

libertas,  100.  3. 

licet,  with  the  subjunctive,  386. 
lingua,  95.  2. 
lino,  203.  V. 

Liquids,  17  f. ;  99  f. 

- as  sonants,  100. 

I  is,  104.  1.  b. 
litter  a,  88. 1. 

Localistic  theory  of  the  cases,  299. 
Locative  uses  of  the  Ablative,  348  f. 
Locative  of  the  goal,  351. 
locus,  104.  1.  b. 

Logical  theory  of  the  cases,  300. 

Long  diphthongs,  86. 

lubet ,  78. 

lubidd,  6.  2. 

lucrum,  99. 

M. 

m,  pronunciation,  19;  20.  3. 
m,  102. 

o 

M  =  1000,  1.  4. 
maestus,  11. 
magistres,  13 1. 
male,  257.  2. 
malim,  218. 
maid,  202.  6. 
jnancipium,  71.  4. 
mare,  93. 

Masculine  a-stems,  112.  2. 

Matuta,  86.  b. 
maxumus,  6.  2. 
me,  187.  4. 
med,  187.  4. 


226 


Index  to  Appendix . 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


rned/us.  97.  2.  b  ;  103.  2. 
wz«,  187.  2. 
me l,  109.  3. 
membrum,  108.  3. 
memirii ,  with  genitive,  325. 
memordi ,  206.  1. 

Menerua ,  98.  1. 
mercenndrius,  106.  2. 
meridie,  256.  1. 

Messalla,  88.  1. 

Metathesis,  107. 

190.  1. 

wz  (Dative),  187.  3. 

(Vocative),  190.  1. 

Michelsen’s  theory  of  the  cases,  300. 

Middle  voice,  200.  4. 

mihi,  88.  3  ;  187.  3. 

militiae ,  256.  1. 

mllle,  183.  16. 

millesimus,  184.  10. 

niiluos,  16.  1.  e. 

mina,  91. 

minbris,  344. 

minus ,  181. 

misceo,  105.  1. 

miser ,  98.  3. 

miseret ,  with  genitive,  328. 

OTWZ,  98.  2. 

modo ,  88.  3  ;  257.  1,  - 

z/ztfzfo,  introducing  a  proviso,  397. 

moenia,  81.  1. 

mollis ,  106.  3. 

momordi ,  90 ;  206.  1. 

moncam ,  221. 

moneo,  203.  VII.  c. 

monerem ,  222.  3. 

mons,  mantis ,  41. 

morbus,  97.  1. 

tnuccus,  88.  1. 

muliebre  secus,  310.  2. 

muliebris,  108.  3. 

mulsi,  105.  1. 

Multiplicatives,  186. 
multum,  254.  1. 

Mutes,  24  ff. ;  94  ff. 
muttire,  88.  1. 

N. 

«,  pronunciation,  20. 
w  for  m,  101.  1. 

«,  102. 

O  ’ 

«  adulterinum,  20.  i. 


«-class  of  verbs,  203.  IV. 

for  «,  102.  2. 

Nasals,  19  f. ;  101  f. 

- as  sonants,  102. 

Nasal  Stems,  147.  2. 
jiatus,  104.  1. 
navis,  180.  2. 

quantity  of  vowel  before,  40. 

ne,  '  verily,’  n. 

necesse  est,  with  the  subjunctive,  386. 

necto,  203.  III. 

neglego,  87.  1. 

negotium,  25.  3. 

nexus,  108.  1. 

nf,  pronunciation,  20.  2. 

nf,  quantity  of  vowel  before,  37. 

-nguont,  -nguontur,  57.  4. 

nihil,  90. 

ninguit,  97.  3.  B. 

nisi,  90.  ♦ 

zz/'z'z'j-,  97.  3.  B. 

«5-class  of  verbs,  203.  V. 
nobis,  187.  7. 
noctu,  256.  1. 
nolim ,  218. 

;?<?/(?,  103.  3  ;  202.  6. 

Nbminativus,  297. 
nominus,  138. 
nonus,  184.  7. 
wot,  187.  5. 
nostrl,  187.  6. 
nostrum,  187.  6. 
not  us,  104.  1. 

Nouns,  declension,  in  ff. 
noveni,  185.  2. 
novem,  183.  9. 
novos,  73.  3. 

pronunciation,  20.  2. 
quantity  of  vowel  before,  37. 
nt,  quantity  of  vowel  before,  40. 
nTilla  causa  quin,  etc.,  387. 

Numasioi,  86.  b. 

Numerals,  183  f. 

O. 

0,  pronunciation,  7. 

<5,  changes,  76. 
b  from  e,  73.  3. 

^-Series,  69. 

0  lost,  93.  2. 

^-sterns,  124.  f. 

0,  77- 


227 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


o  from  au,  84.  1. 

0-Series,  67. 

ob,  93  ;  96.  1 ;  280. 

ob  in  composition,  58.  e. 

obliviscor ,  with  genitive,  325. 

occultus,  100.  1. 

octdvus,  184.  6. 

odingenti ,  183.  15. 

odd ,  183.  8. 

oe,  pronunciation,  11. 

officina ,  92 ;  106.  2. 

0/,  86. 

0/,  changes,  81. 
oinos,  11. 
oitilis,  11. 
ol  from  /,  101. 
olle,  195! 

operio ,  96.  1 ;  280. 

oportet ,  with  the  subjunctive,  386. 

Optative,  217. 

- original  force,  355. 

- Subjunctive,  359 ;  365. 

optimus ,  182.  2. 
optio,  m.,  1 1 2.  2. 
optumus ,  6.  2. 

138. 

with  ablative,  341.  2. 

-<?r,  88.  2. 
orbus,  97.  1.  A 
Ordinals,  184. 

Orthography,  56  f. 
os,  109.  3. 
ostendd,  105. 1. 

85. 

for  eu,  85. 
ou,  86. 

P. 

A  96. 1. 

A  pronunciation,  26. 
p  for  b,  96.  1. 

paenitet,  with  genitive,  328. 

Palatal  distinguished  from  Guttural,  30. 
Palatal  Mutes,  94  f. 
pando,  107. 

-pattxl,  208. 

Parasitic  Vowels,  91. 

Parataxis,  367. 
parjetis,  16.  1.  c. 
parricida ,  88.  1 
parsi,  208. 
partetn,  310.  4. 


Partial  Assimilation,  106.  4. 
particeps ,  71.  1. 

Participles,  formation,  248  f. 
pastas,  105.  1. 
pedo,  203.  III. 
pedestris,  108.  1. 
pellis,  106.  3. 

pendere  animl,  ariimis,  349.  2. 
pepugi,  206.  1. 
per,  281. 

per  in  composition,  58 ./ 

Perfect  Indicative,  200.  3  ;  206  ff. 

- ,  inflection,  212. 

- in  -si,  208. 

- in  -ui,  210. 

- in  -vi,  209. 

Personal  Endings,  207  ;  229  ff. 

- Pronouns,  187  ff. 

pessimus,  182.  1. 

M  31.  2;  5. 

piaclum,  95.  1. 
pignosa,  98.  1. 
pilleus,  88.  1. 
pilu?n,  105.  2. 
pilumnoe,  131. 
pledo,  203.  III. 
plerumque,  254.  1. 
plied,  87.  2. 
plodo ,  84.  1. 
pint,  210. 

Pluperfect  Indicative,  215. 

- Subjunctive,  222.  4. 

plurimunt,  254.  1. 
plurimus,  182.  1. 
pluris,  344. 
pluvi,  210. 
polio,  261.  4. 
polliceor,  284. 
pond,  261.  4. 
pons,  pont is,  41. 
pontufex,  6.  2. 
poploe,  13 1. 
populus,  91. 
por-,  284. 
porrigo,  284. 
porta,  100.  2. 
portendo,  284. 
portorium,  no. 
poscere,  105.  1. 
posco,  203.  VI. 

Possessive  Pronouns,  190. 
possirn,  218. 


228 


Index  to  Appendix. 

% 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


post,  282. 
poster  us,  181. 
postremus,  182.  1. 
postridie,  173  ;  256.  1. 
postumus ,  182.  2. 

Potential  Subjunctive,  366  ;  404.  2. 
potiu,  108.  4. 

potior  with  ablative,  341.  1. 

- with  genitive,  330. 

prae,  283. 
praeddd,  109.  1. 
praestigiae,  99. 
praeter,  283. 
prehendo,  97.  3.  B. 

Prepositions,  260  f. 

- in  composition,  58. 

Present  Optative,  218. 

- stem,  201  f. 

pridie,  173. 

primus,  182.  1 ;  184.  1. 
priusquam,  380. 
pro-,  284. 
pro-,  284. 
prodesse,  109.  1. 

Progressive  Assimilation,  106.  1 ;  2. 
Prohibitive  Subjunctive,  358.  d. 
Pronominal  Adjectives,  199. 
Pronouns,  187  ff. 

Pronunciation,  3  ff. 
prope ,  285. 
propter,  285. 
prorsus,  258. 
protinus,  73.  2.  a. 

Provisos,  358.^;  397. 
proximus,  182.  1. 
pudet,  with  genitive,  328. 
p ulcer,  31.  3. 
pule  her,  25.  i.g. 
pulsus,  101.  1 ;  108.  1. 

-punxi,  208. 
puppa,  88.  1. 
pupugi,  90;  206.  1. 
purpura,  90. 

Q. 

q,  25.  4  ;  94. 
qua,  198.  6  ;  255.  3. 
quadra,  183.  13. 
quadraginta,  183.  13. 
quadringenti,  183.  15. 
quae,  198.  2. 
quanti,  344. 


qudrtus,  184.  4. 
quater,  186.  4. 
quattuor,  183.  4. 
quem,  198.  5. 
querela,  89. 
quernus,  105.  1. 
qui,  198.  2. 
quid,  198.  2. 

quinque,  73.  2.  b\  96.  1 ;  183.  5. 

quintus ,  105.  1 ;  184.  4. 

quis,  198.  2. 

quis,  198.  7. 

quo,  198.  6. 

quoad  with  Subjunctive,  380. 
quod,  198. 
quoniam,  101.  1. 

-quos,  -quont,  etc.,  orthography,  57.  1.  d. 
quot ,93. 
quum,  57.  3. 

R. 

r,  pronunciation,  18. 
r,  100. 

O  7 

r  from  /,  99. 
r  from  s,  98.  1. 

-r  for  in  nominative,  98.  4. 

/--Stems,  147.  3. 
ra  from  r,  100.  2. 

_  O 

radix,  104.  1.  c. 
re-,  286. 
reccidi,  206.  1. 

Re-composition,  87.  1. 
recta,  255.  3. 
red-,  286. 

Reduplicating  class  of  verbs,  203.  II. 

Reduplication,  206. 

refert,  349.  3. 

refert,  with  genitive,  329. 

Reflexive  Pronouns,  189. 
regam ,  221. 
regerem,  222.  3. 

Regressive  Assimilation,  106.  1 ;  3. 
Relative  Clauses,  398  ff. ;  403  ff. 

Relative  Pronouns,  198. 
relincunt,  57.  2. 

reliquum  est  with  the  Subjunctive,  386. 

reminiscor  with  genitive,  325. 

remus,  89. 

repen te,  257.  3. 

repperi,  206.  I. 

res,  180.  1. 

Restrictive  Clauses,  401.  3. 


229 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


Result  Clauses,  374 ;  375  ;  376. 
rettuli,  206.  1. 

Rhotacism,  98. 

Romance  languages,  36.  5. 

Root  class  of  verbs,  203.  I. 
rubemus ,  203.  VII.  b. 
rubro-,  97.  2.  c. 

Rumpel’s  theory  of  the  cases,  301. 
rumpo,  203.  IV. 
rursus,  259. 
rutundus ,  90. 

S. 

j,  98. 

s,  pronunciation,  22. 
s  between  vowels,  98.  2. 
j-Stems,  147.  1. 

-s  from  ns,  109.  3.  b. 

-s  from  is,  109.  3.  b. 
sacerdos ,  65. 
saeclum,  95.  1. 
saeculum,  91. 
salignus,  94.  3. 
salvus,  100.  1. 

Samnium,  106.  4.  c. 
satin,  108.  4. 
scdla,  89. 
scicidi,  206.  1. 
scidi,  206.  1. 
scilicet,  204. 

-jco-class  of  verbs,  203.  VI. 

se,  189.  3. 

se-,  288. 

secerno,  100.  3. 

secundum,  287. 

secundus,  184.  2. 

secuntur,  57.  2. 

sed~,  189.  3. 

seditio,  109.  1. 

sedulo ,  76.  1. 

segmentum,  94.  3. 

sella,  106.  2. 

semel,  186.  1. 

Semivowels,  103. 
semodius,  no. 
sempiternus,  99. 
sent,  185.  2. 
septe?n,  102.  1 ;  183.  7. 
septeni,  185.  2. 

Septimus,  184.  5. 
sepulcrum ,  31.  3. 
sequere  (Imperative),  227. 


sequitur,  ‘it  remains,’  with  subjunctive, 
386. 

send,  203.  II. 
sescenti,  105.  1. 
sex,  183.  6. 
sexcenti,  87.  3. 
sextus,  184.  4. 

Shortening  of  Vowels,  88. 

si,  origin  as  a  conjunction,  394. 

sibi,  88.  3 ;  189.  2. 

siccus,  106.  2. 

side,  64 ;  89  ;  203.  II. 

siem,  218. 

siemus,  218. 

silua,  16.  1.  e. 

sun,  218. 

similis,  construction,  323. 

simplex,  73.  2.  b. 

singuli,  185.  1. 

sis,  190.  3. 

sis  to,  203.  II. 

so-,  288. 

soboles,  90. 

sobrinus,  108.  3. 

sobrius,  288. 

socors,  288. 

solium,  64 ;  95.  2. 

somnus,  106.  4.  c. 

-sor,  88.  2. 

Sounds,  62  f. 
sovos,  190.  3. 
spar  si,  105.  1. 
spepondi,  206.  1. 
speres,  171.  1. 
sperno,  203.  V. 

Spirants,  21  f . ;  98  f. 
sponte,  257.  3. 
spopondi,  206.  I. 
ss  from  dt,  108.  1. 
ss  from  tt,  108.  1. 
stab ulum,  91 ;  97.  2.  c. 
stare  with  ablative,  349.  2. 
stella ,  106.  2. 
stellio,  88. 1. 
sterno ,  203.  V. 
sternuo,  104.  I. 
steti,  206.  1. 
stlatus,  104.  1.  b. 
stlis,  104.  I.  b. 
stlocus,  104.  1.  b. 
stratus,  100.  1. 
strenna,  88.  1. 


230 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


Strong  grades  of  roots,  64. 
stuppa,  88.  1. 
stupendium ,  6.  2. 
sub,  93.  2 ;  96.  1 ;  289. 
sub  in  composition,  58.^. 

Subjunctive,  200.  5. 

- uses,  358  ff. 

- of  Contingent  Futurity,  360;  366; 

406. 

- in  Dependent  Clauses,  367. 

- formation,  220  ff. 

- original  force,  354. 

- in  principal  clauses,  358  ff. 

- of  purpose,  368. 

- syntax,  353  ff. 

Substantive  Clauses,  381  ff. 

- after  verbs  of  hindering ,  383. 

- after  verbs  of  deciding ,  etc.,  384. 

- after  verbs  of  striving ,  etc.,  385. 

- after  verbs  of  wishing,  388. 

- after  verbs  of  fearing,  389. 

- of  Result,  390. 

- with  quin,  391. 

- from  Volitive,  381  f. 

- introduced  by  quom inus,  383. 

subter,  289. 

subtilis,  90. 

succus,  88.  1. 

su'esco ,  105.  1 ;  203.  VI. 

Suffixes, 

- of  a-stems,  in. 

- of  j-stems,  148. 

- of  <?-stems,  124. 

- of  w-stems,  160. 

- ios-,  -ies-,  18 1. 

- ion-,  -in-,  147.  2.  b. 

- mon-,  -men-,  -mn-,  147.  2.  c. 

- men-,  -mn-,  147.  2.  d. 

- mo-,  -ma-,  182,  1. 

- on-,  -en-,  -n-,  147.  2.  a. 

- os-,  -es-,  147.  1. 

- ter-,  -tr-,  147.  3.  a. 

- tero-,  -ter a-,  181. 

- tor-,  -tor-,  -tr-,  147.  3.  b. 

sui,  189.  1. 

sum,  202.  3. 

sum  us,  106.  2  ;  182.  2. 

sump  si,  108.  2. 

super,  290. 

Superlative  degree,  182. 

Supine,  252.  2. 
supra,  255.  3 


suprad,  255.  3. 
surrexe,  47.  2. 
siis,  171.  2. 
suscipio,  105.  1. 
suspicid,  25.  3  ;  90. 
suus,  103.  4 ;  190.  3. 

Syllables  dissimilated,  no. 

- division  of,  35. 

Syncope,  92. 

Syncretism,  in  ablative,  331 ;  332. 
Syntax,  295  ff. 

T. 

A  95- 

pronunciation,  24. 

/-class  of  verbs,  203.  III. 

fanti ,  344. 

te,  188.  4. 

ted,  188.  4. 

tegb,  104.  1.  b. 

tenino,  203.  V. 

temo,  89. 

templum,  108.  2. 

tendo,  107. 

tenebrae .  108.  3. 

ten  ere  castris,  349.  1. 

tentus,  102.  1. 

ten  us,  291. 

tenuia,  16.  1.  a. 

-ter,  88.  2. 
ter,  186.  3. 
ter  tins,  184.  3. 
th,  31.  2 ;  4. 

Thematic  Conjugation,  201 ;  203. 
tibi,  88.  3  ;  188.  3. 
tibia,  104.  1. 
tinguo,  73.  2.  b. 

-tlo-,  95.  1. 

tollo,  100.  1 ;  203.  V. 

-tor,  88.  2. 
tor  red,  203.  VII.  c. 
torrere,  106.  3. 
tortus,  105.  1. 
torus,  104.  1.  b. 
tot,  93. 
totondi,  90. 
tovos,  190.  2. 
trails,  292. 

trans ,  in  composition,  58.  h. 
trdnsduco,  87.  3. 
trdxe,  47.  2. 
trecenti,  183.  15. 


I 


231 


Index  to  Appendix. 

The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 


tredecim ,  183.  11. 
tres ,  183.  3. 
tribubus ,  168. 
trigintd,  183.  13. 
it  ini,  185.  2. 
trio,  104.  1.  b. 
triumpus,  31.  3. 
tu,  188.  1. 
tugurium ,  90. 
tui,  188.  2. 

-tutnus,  -timus,  182.  2. 

Tuscus,  105.  1. 
tuus,  103.  4 ;  190.  2. 

U. 

u,  pronunciation,  8. 
u,  78. 

u  from  av,  103.  4. 
it  from  ov,  103.  4. 
u  from  71.  3 ;  4. 
u  from  0,  76.  1 ;  2. 
u,  79. 

u  from  au,  84.  2. 
u  from  eu ,  85. 
u  from  oi,  81.  1. 
u  from  ou,  85. 
u  consondns,  16.  1.  a. 

^-sterns,  17 1. 

«-stems,  160. 
uber ,  97.  2.  c. 
ui,  14 ;  83. 
ul  from  l,  100.  1. 

_  O’ 

ullus,  106.  2. 
uls,  293. 
ultimus ,  182.  2. 
ultra,  255.  3  ;  293. 
ultus,  105.  1. 

-utn  in  genitive  plural  of  a-  and  0-stems 
42. 

umbilicus,  76.  2. 
umerus,  23. 

Timor,  23. 

Tina,  255.  3. 

-u  tic  id,  51.  5. 

-un cuius,  51.  5. 
uncus,  76.  2. 
unda ,  107. 

Unthematic  Conjugation,  201 ;  202. 
unus,  183.  1. 

-uos,  - uom ,  -uont,  etc.,  57.  1.  c. 
urna ,  105.  1. 

-urnus,  51.  3. 


-its  in  genitive  singular,  138. 

-US Clllus,  51.  5. 

-ustus,  51.  4. 

Titor  with  ablative,  341.  1. 

V. 

v,  pronunciation,  16. 
v,  changes,  103.  3  ;  4. 
valde,  92. 
vehd,  97.  3.  A. 

Velar  gutturals,  94.  1. 
velim,  218. 
velle,  106.  3  ;  243. 
vellem ,  222.  3. 
venejicus,  no. 

venio,  101.  1 ;  103.2;  203.  VII. a. 
venire,  94.  2.  b. 
ventum ,  106.  4. 

Verbs  of  judicial  action,  327. 

versum,  -us,  294. 

ves cor,  with  ablative,  341.  1. 

vesperi,  256.  1. 

vestri,  vestrum,  188.  6. 

vhevhaked,  206.  1. 

vias,  1 13. 

vicem,  310.  3. 

viceni,  185.  2. 

vicesimus,  184.  8. 

videlicet,  204. 

viderimus ,  219. 

vidi,  212. 

vidimus,  108.  4. 

viduus,  97.  2.  b. 

viginti,  73.  2.  b  ;  183.  12. 

vincere  pugnd,  349.  1. 

vine lum,  95.  1. 

virile  secus,  310.  2. 

vis,  ‘  thou  wilt,’  202.  6. 

vitulus,  91. 

vivus,  94.  2.  b. 

vobis,  188.  7. 

I  Vocdtivus,  297. 

vol-,  orthography  of  words  beginning 
with,  57.  1.  a. 

Volitive,  354;  358;  404.  1. 
void,  202.  6. 
voluntdrius,  no. 
vordre,  94.  2.  b. 
vos,  188.  5. 

-vos,  - vom ,  - vont ,  57.  1.  b. 
vostri,  vostrum ,  188.  7. 

Vowel  gradation,  62  f. 


i 


232 


Index  to  Appendix. 


The  references  are  to  sections  and  paragraphs. 

Y. 


Vowels  assimilated,  90. 
Vowels  shortened,  88. 

W. 

Weak  grade  of  roots,  64  f. 

X. 

x,  pronunciation,  32. 
x,  origin  of  the  letter,  1.  2. 


y,  pronunciation,  9. 

y,  origin  of  the  letter,  1.  5. 

■>* 

Z. 

z,  pronunciation,  33. 

z,  origin  of  the  letter,  1.  5. 


LATIN. 


15 


A  Latin  Grammar 


By  Professor  Charles  E.  Bennett,  Cornell  University.  i2mo,  cloth, 
265  pages.  Price,  80  cents. 

HE  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  present  the  essential  facts  of 


I  Latin  Grammar  in  a  simple  and  direct  manner,  and  within 
the  smallest  compass  consistent  with  high  scholarly  standards. 
While  especially  adapted  to  the  needs  of  secondary  schools,  it 
has  also  been  prepared  with  a  view  to  the  larger  demands  of  the 
college  and  university.  By  omitting  rare  forms  and  rare  syn¬ 
tactical  usages  of  the  ante-  and  post-classical  Latinity,  and  by 
relegating  to  an  Appendix  for  Teachers  the  discussion  of  the 
moot  points  of  historical  grammar,  the  compass  of  the  book  has 
been  limited  to  250  pages,  exclusive  of  Indexes.  The  experience 
of  teachers  in  the  German  schools  has  shown  that  books  of  this 
scope  meet  the  exacting  demands  of  the  entire  gymnasial  course. 
It  is  believed  that  a  real  service  may  be  rendered  the  study  of 
Latin  in  America  by  offering  such  a  Grammar  to  our  teachers 
and  students. 

The  Appendix  for  Teachers  contains  a  discussion  of  the  Evi¬ 
dences  for  Pronunciation,  Hidden  Quantity,  History  of  Sound 
Changes,  Origin  of  Inflectional  Forms,  Historical  Syntax,  Pros¬ 
ody,  etc,  and  is  bound  up  with  the  Grammar  in  a  special  Teach¬ 
ers"  Edition. 

Professor  John  C.  Rolfe,  University  of  Michigan :  Our  school  grammars 
have  been  increasing  in  bulk  with  each  new  edition,  until  they  have  come 
to  contain  a  great  deal  of  matter  which  is  of  value  only  to  advanced  stu¬ 
dents.  The  idea  of  publishing  a  grammar  which  shall  contain  within 
the  briefest  possible  compass  the  essential  principles,  and  of  relegating 
the  rest  to  an  appendix  for  the  use  of  teachers  and  advanced  students, 
seems  to  me  a  thoroughly  good  one.  I  have  had  occasion  to  test  Professor 
Bennett’s  book,  and  am  convinced  that  it  contains  everything  necessary  for 
the  purpose  for  which  it  is  intended.  Brevity  is  not  its  only  merit.  In  some 
respects  —  for  instance,  in  the  treatment  of  the  dative  case,  in  the  recogni¬ 
tion  of  the  ablative  of  attendant  circumstance,  in  the  chapter  on  Latin  style, 
and  in  not  a  few  minor  details  —  it  appears  to  me  more  satisfactory  than 
most  of  its  predecessors.  The  typography  and  arrangement  make  it  par¬ 
ticularly  handy  as  a  reference  book.  On  the  whole,  I  am  inclined  to  re¬ 
gard  it  as  the  best  school  grammar  which  has  yet  appeared  in  America. 


18 


LATIN. 


Caesar’s  Gallic  War 


Edited,  with  Introduction,  Notes,  Vocabulary,  Table  of  Idioms,  and 
twenty  full-page  Illustrations,  by  Professor  Francis  W.  Kelsey,  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Michigan.  i2mo,  half  leather,  506  pages.  -Price,  $1.25. 


HROUGHOUT  the  book  every  effort  has  been  made,  by 


1  way  of  illustration  and  comment,  to  render  the  study  of 
Caesar  attractive  and  useful,  a  means  of  culture  as  well  as  of  dis¬ 
cipline.  That  the  result  has  been  to  produce  the  best-equipped 
edition  of  the  Gallic  War  is  generally  conceded. 

The  Introduction,  besides  giving  a  full  review  of  Caesar’s  life 
and  character,  furnishes  also  a  concise  and  logical  account  of 
the  Roman  art  of  war  in  Caesar’s  time.  The  Illustrations  con¬ 
sist  of  six  full-page  colored  plates,  of  a  double-page  map  of  Gaul, 
and  of  fourteen  full-page  maps  and  plans. 

The  text  is  clear,  accurate,  and  uniform  in  its  orthography, 
and  is  conveniently  divided  by  brief  English  summaries. 

The  Notes  are  apt  and  sensible,  with  full  references  to  the 
Grammars  of  Allen  and  Greenough,  Gildersleeve,  and  Harkness. 

The  Table  of  Idioms  and  Phrases,  found  in  no  other  edition, 
will  enable  a  teacher  to  drill  his  class  on  those  constructions 
which  are  most  perplexing  to  beginners. 

The  Vocabulary,  like  the  Notes,  is  intended  to  give  the  pupil 
only  such  help  as  he  needs,  and  such  knowledge  as  he  can  digest. 

Charles  S.  Chapin,  Principal  High  School ,  Fitchburg ,  Mass. :  I  consider 
Kelsey’s  Caesar,  both  for  teacher  and  pupil,  the  most  admirable  edition  in 
the  field,  combining  in  one  volume  text,  notes,  dictionary  of  antiquities, 
maps,  and  all  the  instruments  for  successful  study  of  the  Commentaries. 

0.  D.  Robinson,  Principal  High  School ,  Albany ,  N.Y.:  As  a  text-book  it 
seems  to  me  if  not  absolutely  perfect,  to  approach  as  near  perfection  as 
any  book  I  have  ever  examined.  The  Introduction  and  colored  plates 
are  invaluable  as  aids  to  a  clear  understanding  of  the  text,  and  are  su¬ 
perior  to  anything  of  the  kind  elsewhere.  The  maps,  notes,  vocabulary, 
and  table  of  idioms,  are  unsurpassed  in  any  text-book  of  Caesar  now  in  use. 

Professor  H.  W.  Johnston,  Indiana  University :  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying  that  it  is  the  best  and  handsomest  edition  of  the  most  important 
school  author  that  has  appeared  from  the  American  press. 


LATIN. 


19 


Selected  Orations  and  Letters  of  Cicero 


With  Introduction,  Notes,  and  Vocabulary  by  Professor  Francis  W. 
Kelsey.  i2mo,  half  leather,  518  pages.  Illustrated.  Price,  #1.25. 

HE  Orations  given  in  this  edition  are  the  four  against  Cati- 


1  line,  those  for  the  Manilian  Law,  Archias,  Marcellus,  and 
the  fourth  oration  against  Antony.  These  are  edited  with  a 
view  to  showing  their  value  as  examples  of  oratory,  rather  than 
as  offering  mere  material  for  grammatical  drill.  The  student’s 
attention  is  directed  to  the  occasion  and  circumstances  of  their 
delivery,  as  well  as  to  the  motive  and  method  of  presenting  the 
matter  contained  in  them.  Modes  of  legal  procedure,  the  Con¬ 
stitution  and  form  of  government  in  Cicero’s  time,  and  the  whole 
environment  of  the  orator,  are  brought  into  clear  view,  and  made 
a  reality  to  the  student. 

The  Letters  are  selected  with  reference  to  the  light  they  shed 
on  Cicero  as  a  man  rather  than  as  a  politician.  They  afford 
pleasant  glimpses  of  his  private  life,  and  help  to  make  real  the 
pupil’s  conception  of  the  times  in  which  he  lived.  As  material 
for  short  exercises  for  sight  translation  or  rapid  reading  they 
will  be  found  of  special  value. 

A  Table  of  Idioms  and  Phrases  presents  in  form  convenient 
for  use,  constructions  that  deserve  special  attention. 

Lincoln  Owen,  Principal  of  the  Rice  Training-School ,  Boston:  Kelsey’s 
Cicero  is  a  model  in  the  art  of  text-book  making.  It  cannot  fail  to  be  a 
success  for  editor,  publisher,  and  user.  I  count  the  teachers  and  the  pupils 
of  the  present  generation  fortunate  in  having  such  admirable  “  instruments 
of  education  ”  as  Professor  Kelsey  is  preparing  for  us. 

Professor  J.  W.  Steams,  University  of  Wisconsin :  Kelsey’s  Cicero  com¬ 
mends  itself  more  than  any  words  of  mine  can  commend  it.  It  is  a  teach¬ 
er’s  book,  up  to  modern  times,  both  in  text  and  annotations,  and  admirably 
printed. 

Miss  Ellen  F.  Snow,  High  School ,  Keene ,  N.H. :  I  have  now  used  it  in  my 
classes  for  five  weeks  in  connection  with  ...  in  the  hands  of  a  part  of 
the  class.  Kelsey  has  the  preference  every  time.  It  gives  a  body  to  the 
ideas,  and  tells  the  scholars  things  that  they  want  to  know  in  a  way  suited 
to  them.  1  have  been  waiting  long  enough  to  test  it,  and  I  like  it  better 
every  week. 


22 


LATIN. 


Selections  from  Viri  Romse 


With  Notes,  Exercises,  and  a  Vocabulary  by  Professor  John  C.  Rolfe, 
University  of  Michigan.  i6mo,  cloth,  301  pages.  Price,  75  cents. 


RBIS  ROM^E  VIRI  ILLUSTRES  is  a  compilation  from 


LJ  Cicero,  Livy,  Valerius  Maximus,  and  other  Roman  writers. 
It  is  admirably  adapted  to  help  the  pupil  over  the  difficult  tran¬ 
sition  from  the  introductory  Latin  book  to  Caesar  or  Nepos. 

The  advantage  in  its  use  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  full  of  vari¬ 
ety  and  interest,  and  that  it  gives  the  pupil  a  sketch  of  Roman 
history  from  Romulus  to  Augustus  in  an  attractive  form,  to¬ 
gether  with  many  allusions  to  the  customs  of  Roman  life. 

In  the  present  edition  the  quantities  of  all  the  long  vowels, 
including  “  hidden  quantities,1’  are  marked  ;  exercises  for  trans¬ 
lation  of  English  into  Latin,  based  on  the  text,  are  given. 

Thirty-nine  pages  of  the  book  have  been  prepared  for  reading 
at  sight.  The  other  selections  are  annotated  with  grammatical 
and  explanatory  notes. 

Isaac  B.  Burgess,  The  Morgan  Park  Academy ,  University  of  Chicago: 
After  considerable  class-room  use,  I  take  pleasure  in  commending  the  edi¬ 
tion  of  Viri  Romae  by  Professor  John  C.  Rolfe.  The  notes  and  vocabulary 
show  care  and  accuracy.  The  marking  of  all  long  vowels  is  very  valuable 
in  elementary  work.  The  hints  for  translation  into  Latin  admirably  cover 
a  good  deal  of  ground  in  a  little  space,  and  the  exercises  for  translation 
from  English  into  Latin  save  a  teacher  much  work. 

L.  C.  Hull,  Lawrenceville  School,  New  Jersey :  Rolfe’s  edition  of  Viri  Romae 
is  an  excellent  book ;  attractive,  scholarly,  and  able  to  stand  the  tust  of 
class-room  use.  I  have  been  compelled  to  let  the  management  of  the  class 
that  is  using  the  book  pass  into  the  hands  of  another  teacher;  so  *hat  I 
have  missed  most  of  the  pleasure  that  has  come  from  its  adoption  here. 
But  I  can  vouch  for  its  excellence. 

George  H.  Browne,  Cambridge ,  Mass. :  Every  time  I  have  looked  over 
Rolfe’s  Viri  Romae  I  have  admired  the  aim  and  method  of  its  editor  more 
and  more,  and  cannot  commend  too  highly  the  success  he  seems  to  me  to 
have  attained.  After  using,  I  expect  to  make  the  same  report. 

Professor  J.  H.  Dillard,  Tulane  University ,  New  Orleans ,  La. :  It  gives  in 
excellent  form,  with  judicious  notes  and  timely  suggestions,  correct  mate¬ 
rial  for  easy  work  in  reading  Latin.  1  should  like  to  commend  also  the 
careful  marking  of  the  long  vowels. 


24 


LATIN. 


The  Lives  of  Cornelius  Nepos 

With  Notes,  Exercises,  and  Vocabulary  by  Professor  John  C.  Rolfe, 
University  of  Michigan.  i2mo,  cloth,  387  pages.  Price,  $ 1.10 . 

IN  general  the  same  plan  is  followed  as  in  the  Selections  from 
Viri  Romae. 

In  the  text,  as  well  as  elsewhere  throughout  the  book,  the 
quantity  of  all  the  long  vowels  is  marked,  including  “  hidden 
quantities.” 

The  notes  are  designed  to  enable  the  pupil  to  understand  the 
writer’s  meaning,  and  to  get  a  clear  idea  of  the  events  and  per¬ 
sonages  referred  to.  Instruction  in  syntax  is  given  mainly  by 
the  Exercises  for  Translation  into  Latin.  These  exercises  have 
been  prepared  both  for  oral  and  for  written  work,  and  are  based 
on  the  text. 

The  book  is  provided  with  a  full  vocabulary,  in  which  special 
atlention  is  given  to  the  definition  of  proper  names,  and  with 
maps,  including  all  the  places  mentioned  by  Nepos. 

Charles  C.  Ramsay,  Principal  of  High  School ,  Fall  River ,  Mass.:  It  would 
be  difficult  to  say  too  much  in  praise  of  Professor  Rolfe’s  “  The  Lives  of 
Cornelius  Nepos.”  The  Introduction,  Notes,  and  Vocabulary  are  unusu¬ 
ally  well  done,  and  will  render  the  study  of  the  lives  interesting  and  de¬ 
lightful.  The  publishers,  moreover,  deserve  a  share  of  the  praise  for  the 
very  attractive  form  in  which  the  book  is  issued.  The  typography  is  clear, 
and  the  paper  is  good. 

Walter  A.  Edwards,  Principal  of  High  School ,  Rockford ,  III.:  I  am  de¬ 
lighted  with  your  Rolfe’s  edition  of  Nepos,  both  as  to  its  typographical 
appearance  and  as  to  the  educational  value  of  the  work.  Taking  it  al¬ 
together  it  is  a  most  attractive  text-book.  I  am  not  clear  in  my  mind 
whether  we  are  ready  to  drop  Ceesar  yet  and  turn  to  some  such  work  as 
this,  which  would  certainly  have  the  advantage  of  greater  interest,  and  per¬ 
haps  a  greater  practical  value.  There  are  some  points  of  value  which  we 
should  be  sorry  to  lose  .  .  .  but  I  am  open  to  conviction,  and  Professor 
Rolfe’s  book  goes  a  long  way  toward  convincing  me. 

Professor  Leon  J.  Richardson,  University  of  California:  As  a  Latin 
department  we  are  encouraging  the  reading  of  Nepos  in  the  California 
High  Schools.  For  this  purpose  your  book  commends  itself  very  highly. 
Professor  F.  G.  Axtell,  Chaffey  College ,  Ontario ,  Calif.:  The  Nepos  is  the 
best  edition  I  have  seen. 


26 


LATIN. 


Easy  Latin  Lessons 


By  Professor  Thomas  B.  Lindsay,  Boston  University,  and  George 
W.  Rollins,  Boston  Latin  School.  i2mo,  half  leather,  382  pages. 
Price,  $1.00. 

HIS  book  aims  to  present  the  essentials  of  Latin  Grammar 


i  in  a  clear  and  simple  form.  It  does  not  attempt  to  teach 
the  whole  grammar  in  the  first  year.  The  lessons  are  short  and 
easy,  and  each  is  complete  in  itself.  In  every  instance  the  exer¬ 
cises  consist  of  complete  sentences,  not  of  detached  words  or 
phrases.  Connected  Latin  for  reading  has  been  introduced  as 
early  as  possible,  and  has  been  continued  throughout  the  book. 

The  vocabularies  are  brief,  introducing  not  more  than  ten  new 
words  for  each  lesson.  The  Appendix  contains  a  complete  view 
of  all  the  forms  of  inflection. 

The  number  of  words  introduced  in  the  lessons  besides  proper 
names,  is  about  900  ;  in  the  reading  exercises  550  more  are  used. 
This  is  believed  to  be  a  golden  mean  between  the  books  that 
contain  only  600  words  and  those  containing  more  than  2,000. 

F.  A.  Alabaster,  Department  of  Latin ,  Nebraska  Wesleyan  University : 
In  contrast  with  the  book  I  had  been  using  for  the  four  years  previous  to 
the  introduction  of  Lindsay  and  Rollins’s,  I  would  say  one  of  its  strong 
points  is  the  definiteness  in  regard  to  the  length  of  each  lesson.  Then, 
too,  the  very  judiciously  selected  vocabulary  in  each  lesson,  which  is 
neither  too  short  to  fairly  equip  the  student  when  the  book  is  mastered, 
nor  too  long  (a  common  error),  so  as  to  discourage  and  dishearten  him. 
The  selection  and  arrangement  of  sentences  is  also  gratifying,  illustrating 
as  they  do  the  use  of  constructions  that  are  constantly  introduced.  The 
grammatical  introduction  is,  to  my  mind,  a  very  fitting  and  necessary  part 
of  a  beginning  book  in  Latin,  though  a  departure  from  the  ordinary. 
It  is  devoted  chiefly  to  a  discussion  of  the  various  parts  of  speech,  and 
forms  a  connecting  link  to  the  student  as  he  passes  from  the  study  of 
English  to  that  of  Latin. 

Carroll  Lewis  Maxcy,  Troy  Academy ,  Troy ,  N.Y.:  My  class  is  doing 
admirably  in  the  new  book.  It  is  a  great  improvement. 

Frank  P.  Brent.  Onancock  Academy ,  Virginia:  The  book  is  admirably 
graded,  and  clearly  presents  just  those  things  that  should  be  learned  by  a 
pupil  during  the  first  year  in  Latin.  We  are  using  it  with  marked  success. 


,, LATIN . 


27 


Livy,  Books  /.,  XXL ,  and  XXII. 


With  Introduction  and  Notes  by  Professor  John  H.  Westcott,  Col¬ 
lege  of  New  Jersey,  Princeton.  i2mo,  cloth,  426  pages.  Price,  $1.25. 

N  attempt  has  been  made  in  this  volume  to  present  in  sim- 


A  pie  and  convenient  form  the  assistance  needed  by  young 
students  making  their  first  acquaintance  with  Livy. 

The  editor’s  experience  in  the  class-room  has  led  him  to 
annotate  the  text  copiously.  On  the  other  hand,  that  fulness  of 
illustration  which  apparently  aims  to  supersede  the  function 
of  the  teacher  has  been  carefully  avoided. 

Dr.  Cecil  F.  P.  Bancroft,  Principal  of  Phillips  Academy,  Andover,  M ass.  : 
I  have  been  using  Westcott’s  Livy  this  term  and  last,  and  it  seems  to  me 
an  excellent  book. 

Professor  Charles  E.  Bennett,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.Y.:  It  seems 
to  me  an  excellent  book.  I  examined  part  of  the  notes,  and  found  them 
exceedingly  fresh  and  scholarly.  They  call  attention  to  the  right  things, 
and  in  the  right  way.  This  edition  is  superior  to  any  similar  edition  with 
which  I  am  acquainted. 

Professor  Samuel  Hart,  Trinity  College,  Hartford,  Conn.:  I  am  greatly 
pleased  with  Professor  Westcott’s  Livy.  It  is  admirably  annotated,  and 
cannot  but  be  of  great  and  real  service. 

Professor  James  H.  Dillard,  Tulane  University,  New  Orleans,  La.:  I 
should  like  to  say  that  Westcott’s  Livy  is  the  most  satisfactory  text-book 
that  I  know  of.  Other  works  may  put  on  a  greater  show  of  learning  ;  but 
when  one  comes  to  every-day  class-room  use,  the  editing  of  this  text  is 
found  to  be  exceptionally  satisfactory. 

Professor  W.  B.  Owen,  Lafayette  College ,  Easton,  Pa.:  I  take  great  pleas¬ 
ure  in  expressing  my  gratification.  The  text  is  a  delight  to  the  eye,  and 
the  notes  are  clear  and  judicious,  well  suited  to  the  wants  of  students  at 
the  stage  when  Livy  is  usually  read. 

Professor  Edgar  J.  Shumway,  New  Brunswick ,  N.  J. :  The  clear  yet  con¬ 
cise  introduction,  and  full,  clearly  expressed  notes,  together  with  typo¬ 
graphic  excellence  of  the  book,  render  the  edition  one  of  great  value. 


Livy ,  Book  I. 


Text,  with  Indicated  Quantities,  by  Professor  John  C.  Rolfe,  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Michigan.  i2mo,  paper,  82  pages.  Price,  25  cents. 


28 


LATIN. 


First  Latin  Reader 


Including  Principles  'of  Syntax  and  Exercises  for  Translation.  By 
Jared  W.  Scudder,  Latin  Master  in  the  Albany  Academy.  i6mo, 
cloth,  295  pages.  Price  90  cents. 

“'HE  first  distinctive  feature  of  this  book  is,  as  its  name  sug- 


1  gests,  that  the  lessons  contain  connected  Latin  passages 
for  the  pupil  to  read.  As  soon  as  practicable,  the  special  gram¬ 
matical  points  to  be  learned  in  each  lesson  are  illustrated,  not  in 
disconnected  sentences,  but  in  a  continuous  Latin  story.  The 
stories  are  drawn  chiefly  from  Roman  mythology  and  traditional 
Roman  history,  interspersed  with  an  occasional  passage  on  the 
life  of  the  Romans.  This  plan  has  the  advantages  of  acting  as 
a  powerful  incentive  to  work ;  of  adding  directly  to  the  pupil's 
knowledge  of  Roman  mythology,  traditions,  and  customs ;  and 
of  emphasizing  at  the  outset  the  fact  that  grammar  is  merely  a 
means  to  the  enjoyment  of  literature. 

The  second  feature  is  that  the  exercises  for  translating  English 
into  Latin  are  based  on  the  text  immediately  preceding  them. 

A  third  point  of  special  importance  is  that,  beginning  with 
Lesson  XX.,  a  passage  to  be  translated  at  sight  is  included  in 
every  lesson.  In  the  report  of  the  Latin  Conference  to  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Secondary  School  Studies,  this  point  is  particularly 
emphasized.  Questions  for  the  pupil  are  inserted  at  the  end  or 
each  lesson.  These  are  not  intended  to  take  the  place  of  ques¬ 
tions  by  the  teacher,  but  are  merely  to  enable  the  pupil  to  ascer¬ 
tain  whether  he  has  thoroughly  mastered  his  lesson.  All  the 
necessary  principles  of  English  Grammar  are  incorporated  in 
the  body  of  the  book. 

Lastly,  questions  in  Latin  referring  to  the  text  are  included, 
in  the  belief  that  nothing  fits  the  pupil  more  quickly  to  under¬ 
stand  Latin  without  translating,  than  this  method  of  asking  and 
answering  questions  in  Latin.  It  is  expected  that  the  use  of 
this  book  will  not  only  add  to  the  beginner's  enjoyment  of 
Latin,  but  that  it  will  insure  rapid  progress  and  unusual  facility 
in  reading  and  understanding  the  language. 


LATIN. 


29 


Gradatim 


An  Easy  Latin  Translation  Book  for  Beginners.  By  H.  R.  Heatley, 
and  H.  N.  Kingdon.  Revised  by  J.  W.  Scudder,  Latin  Master  in 
the  Albany  Academy.  i6mo,  cloth,  228  pages.  Price,  50  cents. 


GRADATIM  offers  an  excellent  selection  of  easy  reading- 
matter  which  may  be  used  to  arouse  and  stimulate  the 
interest  of  the  pupil  in  his  early  study  of  Latin.  It  may  be  used 
either  for  lessons  to  be  regularly  prepared  by  classes  just  begin¬ 
ning  the  subject,  or  for  sight-reading  by  more  advanced  stu¬ 
dents.  The  abundance  of  material  offered  will  allow  the  teacher 
to  select  such  stories  as  will  best  serve  his  particular  purpose. 
The  special  excellence  of  Gradatim  lies  in  the  intrinsic  interest 
of  the  stories.  In  this  respect  it  is  equalled  by  no  similar  book 
that  has  been  ever  issued. 

Twenty-five  pages  of  Latin  stories,  which  illustrate  the  use  of 
the  Accusative  with  the  Infinitive,  the  Subjunctive  of  Indirect 
Question,  and  the  Ablative  Absolute,  have  been  added  to  the 
original  work.  This  is  the  only  edition  of  the  work  in  which 
these  three  subjects  are  especially  treated. 

In  the  first  third  of  the  book,  all  long  vowels  have  been 
marked  ;  elsewhere  they  are  marked  only  in  words  whkh  are 
likely  to  be  mispronounced,  or  which  occur  for  the  first  time. 

The  Vocabulary  has  been  entirely  rewritten,  and  its  scope 
much  enlarged. 

Ray  Greene  Huling,  Principal  of  the  English  High  School ,  Cambridge , 
Mass. :  In  its  original  English  form  it  was  a  delightful  primer,  and  has 
relieved  the  drudgery  of  elementary  work  in  Latin  in  many  schools.  The 
changes  introduced  by  this  editor  are  genuine  additions,  making  the  work 
a  much  better  supplementary  book  for  early  translation  than  before. 

H,  S.  Cowell,  Cushing  Academy,  Ashburnham,  Mass.:  I  regard  it  as  a 
very  valuable  book  for  supplementary  work  for  first-year  Latin  students. 
Professor  John  H.  Grove,  Ohio  Wesleyan  University :  It  is  certainly  an 
admirable  book  to  put  into  the  hands  of  beginners  in  Latin  as  a  com¬ 
panion  to  the  Latin  Grammar.  In  both  matter  and  general  appearance 
the  work  will  commend  itself  to  instructors. 

B.  L.  D’Ooge,  Normal  School ,  Yfsilanti ,  Mich.:  It  is  in  my  judgment  by  far 
the  best  collection  of  easy  Latin  Selections  available. 


30 


LATIN. 


Latin  Selections 

Specimens  of  the  Latin  Language  and  Literature,  from  the  Earliest 
Times  to  the  End  of  the  Classical  Period.  Edited  by  Edmund  H. 
Smith  ;  revised  by  Professor  Willard  K.  Clement,  University  of 
Idaho.  i2mo,  cloth,  446  pages.  Price,  $1.50. 

EGINNING  with  the  Song  of  the  Arval  Brothers,  and 
fragments  from  the  Laws  of  the  Kings  and  of  the  Twelve 
Tables,  these  Selections  illustrate  Latin  Literature  down  to  the 
time  of  Boethius.  More  than  130  authors  are  represented,  and 
no  name  of  any  reputation  is  wanting.  No  such  condensed  and 
complete  view  of  Latin  literature  can  be  found  in  any  other 
publication. 

The  text  of  this  revised  edition  has  everywhere  been  carefully 
compared  with  that  of  a  standard  critical  edition,  and  may  be 
considered  as  authoritative. 

Professor  Tracy  Peck,  Yule  College :  The  plan  seems  to  me  to  be  carried 
out  with  excellent  judgment  and  taste.  This  work  certainly  gives,  in  suc¬ 
cinct  and  attractive  form,  a  clear  view  of  Roman  literature  throughout 
its  best  periods. 

Fifty  Stories  from  Aulas  Gel  Hus 

Edited  for  reading  at  sight  by  Professor  John  H.  Westcott,  Col¬ 
lege  of  New  Jersey,  Princeton.  i6mo,  paper,  81  pages.  Price,  30  cents. 

HIS  is  a  collection  of  interesting  stories,  which  form  excel¬ 
lent  material  for  sight-reading.  The  Notes,  which  are  quite 
full,  are  at  the  bottom  of  the  page. 

One  Hundred  and  Twenty  Epigrams  of 
Martial 

Edited  by  Professor  John  H.  Westcott.  i6mo,  paper,  81  pages. 
Price,  30  cents. 

HIS  selection  is  intended  for  rapid  reading,  or  even  for  sight¬ 
reading  with  students  of  sufficient  ability.  For  the  sake  of 
convenience  and  rapidity  in  reading,  the  notes  have  been  placed 
on  the  pages  with  the  text. 


DATE  DUE 

OCT  26  '1 

16 

JlflU   *r 

iryyo 

'vij 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U..S.A. 

BOSTON  COLLEGE 


3  9031 


V 


91298  5 


131123 


PA2087  B5 

131 123 

les  E. 


Title 

Anaenrii v  to  Bennett's 


Xu 


/ 


'■  rjzz:. 


97 

(Bs 

BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  HEIGHTS 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  and  may 

be  renewed  for  the  same  period,  unless  re- 
served. 

1  wo  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  book 
kept  overtime. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  ask  the 
Librarian  who  will  be  glad  to  help  you. 

The  borrower  is  responsible  for  books  drawn 
on  his  card  and  for  all  fines  accruing  on  the 


same. 


